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 368 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Thompson 2019-CA-4The record reflects that the appellant subjectively understood the trial court’s ability to revoke his post-release control and to impose a prison term for the post-release control violation that would be served consecutively to the prison term for his breaking-and-entering conviction. Therefore, the trial court substantially complied with the pertinent portion of Crim.R. 11(C). Judgment affirmed.HallClark 10/18/2019 10/18/2019 2019-Ohio-4299
State v. Johnston 2018-CA-26The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The record indicates that there was an undue delay in filing the motion and that appellant failed to establish a manifest injustice warranting the withdrawal of his guilty plea. Appellant’s argument that his sentence is void is outside the scope of this appeal and otherwise lacks merit, as the trial court sentenced appellant as required by law. The ineffective assistance of counsel claims that appellant raises on appeal also lack merit and were improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring.)WelbaumMiami 10/18/2019 10/18/2019 2019-Ohio-4296
Burks v. Burks 28349The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the appellant’s motion to modify her child-support obligation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the appellant in civil contempt for interfering with the appellee’s parenting time. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 10/18/2019 10/18/2019 2019-Ohio-4292
Cable v. McHenry 28398The trial court did not err when it granted a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) to appellee. The record establishes that appellant knew that his conduct was likely to cause appellee to believe that appellant would cause him and/or his family physical harm or mental distress. Therefore, we find that the CSPO issued by the magistrate and adopted by the trial court was supported by the preponderance of the evidence, and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 10/18/2019 10/18/2019 2019-Ohio-4293
State v. Fuchs 27873Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of violating a protection order, a fifth degree felony based upon appellant’s previous conviction for violating the same protection order. Appellant’s counsel provided ineffective assistance by his failure to object to the admission of an unredacted copy of the protection order, which included, as an attachment, a magistrate’s decision detailing appellant’s conduct that led to the issuance of the protection order. Also, under the facts of this case, there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s ineffective representation, the outcome of the case would have been different. Judgment reversed and remanded. (Welbaum, P.J., dissenting.)TuckerMontgomery 10/18/2019 10/18/2019 2019-Ohio-4294
In re Guardianship of Weimer 28327Adult daughter filed an application for guardianship of her father, an alleged incompetent person. The probate court did not abuse its discretion in not enforcing an order that father obtain an expert evaluation from a particular medical provider. Father submitted to two expert evaluations from other physicians, one of whom daughter also had contacted to try to obtain an evaluation for her father; both physicians concluded that father was competent, and daughter did not respond to father’s subsequent motion to vacate the court’s order for an evaluation. In addition, daughter’s rights were not violated by the probate court’s dismissal of her petition without an evidentiary hearing. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 10/18/2019 10/18/2019 2019-Ohio-4295
State v. Lynch 28291The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss due to preindictment delay. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 10/18/2019 10/18/2019 2019-Ohio-4297
MILA Invests., Ltd. v. Hutchins 28213The trial court did not err in denying motion to revive dormant judgment and in awarding attorney’s fees as a sanction for frivolous conduct, pursuant to R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(a)(iii). Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 10/18/2019 10/18/2019 2019-Ohio-4298
State v. Herron 27910The trial court erred in correcting appellant’s sentence by imposing post-release control for an offense for which appellant had completed the prison term. Judgment vacated in part and remanded for a corrected judgment entry.HallMontgomery 10/11/2019 10/11/2019 2019-Ohio-4180
State v. Koch 28041Appellant was convicted of two counts of felonious assault (deadly weapon and serious physical harm) based on his participation in the second of two altercations between his family members and a former employee of his cousins. The trial court did not commit plain error when it instructed the jury on defense of another by means of deadly force (along with an instruction on non-deadly force) and on complicity with respect to both counts of felonious assault. The trial court did not commit plain error when it allowed the victim and a police detective to testify about the actions of the individuals involved in the altercation as shown on surveillance videos. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence regarding the first altercation, in which appellant was not a participant. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 10/11/2019 10/11/2019 2019-Ohio-4182