Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 748 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Amey 105847Sufficiency; manifest weight; voluntary manslaughter; mitigating circumstances; burden of proof; inconsistent verdicts. The conviction on the involuntary manslaughter count is affirmed because the defendant solely challenges the evidence pertaining to the mitigating circumstances that are not an element the state must prove and any inconsistency in the verdicts is not grounds for a new trial.S. GallagherCuyahoga 10/18/2018 10/18/2018 2018-Ohio-4207
Kaferle, Exr. v. MKT Holdings, L.L.C. CV-16-872098Default judgment; Civ.R. 55(A); appearance; hearing; individual; unauthorized practice of law; presume regularity; liquidated damages; unliquidated damages; negligence. Trial court abused its discretion in granting default judgment without a hearing where defendant demonstrated intention and purpose to defend lawsuit and damages awarded were not supported by sufficient evidence.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 10/18/2018 10/18/2018 2018-Ohio-4208
State v. A.M. CR-17-620452-ARape, gross sexual imposition, kidnapping, motion for mistrial, motion to sever charges. Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for mistrial where a witness made an isolated reference to hearsay indicating that the appellant may have previously been in prison. Trial court did not err by failing to sever sexual assault charges involving three separate victims as the evidence at trial was simple and direct. Appellant’s counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to move for merger of various rape and kidnapping counts that constituted allied offenses of similar import.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 10/18/2018 10/18/2018 2018-Ohio-4209
State v. Coleman CR-17-614662-AIneffective assistance of counsel; extortion; intimidation; retaliation; using sham process; attempted aggravated theft; tampering with records. Defendant was not denied effective assistance of trial counsel where counsel failed to object to evidence pertaining to related civil proceedings in which defendant used sham legal process in an attempt to extort money from defendants, intimidate them, and commit a theft offense, as some of the challenged evidence pertained directly to the sham proceedings, and remainder of evidence was relevant to defense trial strategy of attempting to demonstrate that defendant lacked criminal intent and used the process to assert a breach of contract claim.BlackmonCuyahoga 10/18/2018 10/18/2018 2018-Ohio-4210
State v. Bogan CR-16-605087-AMistrial; manifest necessity; juror bias; misconduct; jury deliberations; discharge; objection; verdict form; consent; implied consent; totality of circumstances; dismiss; abuse of discretion; double jeopardy. Because the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial was made with defendant’s implicit consent, this is not the rare or exceptional case where the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause require the dismissal of his indictment with prejudice. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 10/18/2018 10/18/2018 2018-Ohio-4211
State v. Bush 106392Involuntary plea; trial court participation in plea bargain; attorney-client relationship; ineffective assistance of counsel; consecutive sentences. Guilty plea is not involuntary where the trial court makes reasonable inquiry into defendant’s claimed dissatisfaction with representation, and where the court makes fleeting statement that it considers the offered plea to be “a good deal.” Neither counsel’s advisement that the defendant plead guilty, nor defendant’s assertion that counsel was verbally abusive during a private conversation constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Consecutive sentences are appropriate where the court makes required findings that are supported by the record.StewartCuyahoga 10/18/2018 10/18/2018 2018-Ohio-4213
Blisswood Village Home Owners Assn. v. Genesis Real Estate Holdings Group, L.L.C. 106583Foreclosure; lien; assessment; common expenses; subject matter jurisdiction; administrative; R.C. 5311.18; R.C. 5311.081; void; App.R. 12(A)(1)(b); regularity; transcript; App.R. 9(B); App.R. 12; App.R. 16. Foreclosure actions are within the subject matter jurisdiction of a court of common pleas. The trial court had jurisdiction to decide the foreclosure action on its merits. This court need not address the merits of the underlying foreclosure judgment because such an argument is not set forth as an assignment of error in conformity with App.R. 12(A) and 16(A). Appellant failed to comply with the requirements of App.R. 9(B)(5). Without a complete transcript of the trial proceedings, we must presume regularity below.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 10/18/2018 10/18/2018 2018-Ohio-4215
State v. Cummings 106458Photo array, sufficient evidence, manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err when it failed to suppress a photo array because it was not unduly prejudicial. The state presented sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications, and the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.Laster MaysCuyahoga 10/18/2018 10/18/2018 2018-Ohio-4214
Del Zoppo v. Del Zoppo 106664Final appealable order; objections; magistrate’s decision; Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). Appeal dismissed for lack of a final appealable order due to trial court’s failure to rule on all timely objections to magistrate’s decision.E. GallagherCuyahoga 10/18/2018 10/18/2018 2018-Ohio-4216
State v. Vicario 106373Manifest weight of the evidence, motion for mistrial, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel. The convictions of the appellant were not against the manifest weight of the evidence because we are required to give due deference to the factfinder’s conclusions because the demeanor of witnesses, the manner of their responses, and many other factors observable by the factfinder simply are not available to an appellate court on review. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the appellant’s motion for a mistrial because the appellant has not demonstrated how the testimony of the witness was prejudicial or improper. The state is not guilty of prosecutorial misconduct because the appellant has not demonstrated that he was deprived of a fair trial because of the state’s statements. Trial counsel was not ineffective because the appellant did not demonstrate why trial counsel should have requested a continuance to locate a missing witness that was not a witness for the appellant.MaysCuyahoga 10/18/2018 10/18/2018 2018-Ohio-4217
12345678910...>>