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 454 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Griffin v. Churneys Bodyworks, Inc. 108782Civ.R. 37; R.C. 2323.51; motion for sanctions; Civ.R. 41; voluntary dismissal; jurisdiction; right to appeal; deposition; discovery. Plaintiff-appellant appealed the trial court’s decision to grant the defendants-appellees’ motion for sanctions, filed pursuant to Civ.R. 37 and R.C. 2323.51. Appellant argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion because it had been filed after a Civ.R. 41 voluntary dismissal. Appellant also argued that the sanctions imposed were excessive. We found that the trial court had jurisdiction because the motion was filed pursuant to R.C. 2323.51 and is therefore a collateral issue that survives a voluntary dismissal. Appellant also waived his right to appeal whether the costs and fees imposed were excessive. At the hearing, appellant agreed to the amount of fees and costs, withdrawing his objections.KilbaneCuyahoga 7/30/2020 7/30/2020 2020-Ohio-3889
Thomasson v. Thomasson 108813R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)/spousal support/arrearages; R.C. 3105.171/division of marital and business property; Loc.R. 35/guardian ad litem fees/hearing; due process. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the final amount for spousal support and the amount of support arrearage where competent, credible evidence was presented. The value of the contents of the marital home and the marital business was properly determined. The trial court maintained its jurisdiction in this matter in the event appellee/cross-appellant failed to disburse to appellant/cross-appellee her half interest in the business upon the sale of the business. The marital and business property were equitably divided, and there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court. It was an abuse of discretion where the trial court failed to conduct a hearing on the issue of the guardian ad litem fee bill. Appellee/cross-appellant failed to establish any identifiable prejudice on the issue of a continuance for rebuttal testimony; the redacted attorney-fee bill was properly admitted. Appellee/cross-appellant suffered no violation of due process.JonesCuyahoga 7/30/2020 7/30/2020 2020-Ohio-3890
Lakeview Holding, L.L.C. v. Farmer 108900Jurisdiction; final, appealable order; dismissal without prejudice; refiled action; savings statute; R.C. 2305.19; tax certificate; foreclosure; R.C. 5721.36; R.C. 5721.37; standing; certificate holder. Trial court’s dismissal without prejudice of complaint that had been refiled under savings statute was a final, appealable order because it, in effect, functioned as a dismissal with prejudice, barring the plaintiff’s ability to ever refile the case. Trial court did not err in dismissing refiled tax certificate foreclosure action for lack of standing where plaintiff was no longer the holder of the tax certificates when the complaint was refiled.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 7/30/2020 7/30/2020 2020-Ohio-3891
State v. Johnson 108937Motion to withdraw guilty plea; ineffective assistance of counsel; res judicata. Appellant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, upon which his motion to withdraw the guilty plea was predicated, could have been raised on direct appeal and is therefore barred by res judicata.SheehanCuyahoga 7/30/2020 7/30/2020 2020-Ohio-3892
Treasurer of Cuyahoga Cty. v. Frankovic 109037Foreclosure; continuance. The trial court’s decision denying appellant’s motion for a continuance was affirmed. He filed his motion nine days before his scheduled hearing, and it was his third request for a continuance in less than two months. Further, the trial court had warned him when it granted his last continuance that it would not honor any more requests for a continuance. BoyleCuyahoga 7/30/2020 7/30/2020 2020-Ohio-3894
State v. Powell 107276App.R. 26(B) application to reopen, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, perjury, inconsistent prior statements, DNA evidence, expert witnesses, Interstate Agreement on Detainers, tolling, and timeliness. This court denied the App.R. 26(B) application to reopen. Inconsistencies between a witness’s prior statements and the witness’s testimony is not proof of perjury. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call an independent DNA witness. Current DNA standards do not invalidate prior results. Continuances at defendant’s request toll the time period of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 7/29/2020 7/30/2020 2020-Ohio-3887
State v. McDaniel 108978App.R. 26(B); application for reopening; postconviction relief petition; right to counsel; ineffective assistance of counsel. The application for reopening seeking to reopen an appeal that was dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order was denied where a premature appeal was taken from the denial of a postconviction relief petition where no right to counsel or the effective assistance of counsel exists. An application filed to reopen such an appeal cannot succeed.JonesCuyahoga 7/29/2020 7/30/2020 2020-Ohio-3893
State v. Meadows 108452App.R. 26(B); application for reopening; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; due process; right to present a defense; speedy trial; R.C. 2945.71; constitutional rights to speedy trial; retrial after successful appeal; improper continuances; R.C. 2953.08; reinstatement of the indictment; vindictive sentence; trial judge’s absence during a portion of the trial; ineffective assistance of trial counsel; motion to suppress. The application for reopening was denied where the applicant failed to demonstrate a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when counsel failed to raise assignments of error challenging: (1) the denial of his due process right to present a defense; (2) violations of speedy trial rights; (3) the way in which continuances were docketed; (4) violations of R.C. 2953.08; (5) the reinstatement of charges and specifications that were previously dismissed as part of a plea deal that was subsequently vacated on appeal; (6) the trial court’s imposition of a harsher sentence after successful appeal; (7) the lack of the trial court’s presence in the courtroom while the state played a videotaped interview of appellant; (8) and ineffective assistance of trial counsel when counsel failed to file a motion to suppress.BoyleCuyahoga 7/28/2020 7/30/2020 2020-Ohio-3888
Trimble v. Rossi 108683Small claims; security deposit; manifest weight; due process; transcript; Civ.R. 53; plain error; R.C. 5321.16. Appellant failed to file a transcript of the magistrate’s hearing in support of her objections to the magistrate’s decision, as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s objections and adopting the magistrate’s decision in favor of appellee. CelebrezzeCuyahoga 7/23/2020 7/23/2020 2020-Ohio-3801
State v. Williams 108724Anders; consecutive sentences; sentences contrary to law; effective assistance of counsel. The attorney assigned to the appellant was permitted to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The appellant filed a pro se brief. The trial court did not err when it sentenced the appellant to consecutive sentences and the sentences were not contrary to law. The appellant did not demonstrate that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient.Laster MaysCuyahoga 7/23/2020 7/23/2020 2020-Ohio-3802
12345678910...>>