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 283 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Hatfield 2017-CA-36Appellant has completed his prison sentence, has been released from prison, and is not on post-release control. As a result, claims relating to the trial court’s error in imposing a post-release control penalty under R.C. 2929.141(A)(1) are moot. Appeal dismissed.WelbaumChampaign 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3291
State v. Burks 2018-CA-57The trial court erred in failing to make consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C) during the appellant’s sentencing hearing upon revoking his community control. Judgment reversed and remanded.HallClark 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3289
Capital One Bank v. Truss 2018-CA-122The municipal court did not err by entering summary judgment for appellee on its claim on account. The evidence presented by appellee established the account, and appellant presented no evidence that created a genuine issue as to that fact. Judgment affirmed.HallClark 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3290
State v. Rivera 2018-CA-117The offenses of tampering with evidence and abuse of a corpse were offenses of dissimilar import because each offense resulted in separate, distinct harm. Thus, defendant-appellant was properly convicted and sentenced for each offense. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3296
State v. Brown 28197; 28198Appellant’s appeal of his 12-month sentence on one count of aggravated possession of drugs is not moot; the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s website indicates that appellant was placed on transitional control with supervision by the Adult Parole Authority on March 22, 2019, for a period of six months. Based upon our review of the record, including the presentence investigation report, which reflects a criminal history of 25 prior misdemeanors and 6 prior felonies, we do not find that the evidence clearly and convincingly fails to support appellant’s maximum felony sentence. His 12-month sentence also is not contrary to law. Appellant’s appeal of his 180-day sentence for petty theft is moot, since he has completed that portion of his sentence. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3288
State v. Herron 28146The trial court erred when it precluded appellant from testifying to and introducing into evidence specific instances of the victim’s past violent conduct toward him pursuant to Evid.R. 405(B) to show appellant’s state of mind in support of his defense of self-defense. However, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence adduced by the State and the fact that appellant was allowed to testify that the victim had attacked him several times in the past, requiring the appellant to go the hospital to be treated. Appellant’s convictions for felonious assault, murder, and tampering with evidence were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call a defense expert during trial to dispute the testimony of the State’s forensic expert. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3292
LexisNexis v. Murrell 28293The trial court erred in entering summary judgment against the appellants on the appellee’s breach-of-contract claim alleging non-payment under a subscription agreement. The record reveals a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the appellee failed to perform its own obligations under the subscription agreement, as asserted by affidavit, by repeatedly and continually failing to make online legal-research services available to the appellants. Judgment reversed and remanded.HallMontgomery 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3293
State v. Miller 28284The trial court erred in part in dismissing the indictment against appellant. The immunity that R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) provides for persons experiencing overdoses does not apply to prosecution of offenses that occurred prior to the individual’s overdose or that are not outlined in the statute; those offenses should not have been dismissed. However, the trial court did not err in dismissing the drug possession charge based on drugs that were found after appellant was taken to the hospital, even if the drugs could have been discovered in a routine search at the jail or pursuant to a search done incident to appellant’s arrest on other charges. R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b)(i) is unambiguous and provides immunity for possession of drugs that are discovered as a result of obtaining medical assistance for an overdose, which is what occurred in this case. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.TuckerMontgomery 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3294
State v. Reed 28272The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Appellant did not establish that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence upon which he relied. Appellant’s alleged newly discovered evidence did not support a conclusion that the State withheld exculpatory evidence, nor did it support a conclusion that the State’s witnesses who were co-defendants in another matter in another county received a benefit for their testimony in this case. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3295
Zeller v. Farmers Group, Inc. 28013Plaintiffs-appellants asserted the following causes of action against appellees: (1) fraudulent inducement; (2) breach of contract; and (3) a violation of R.C. Chapter 1334, which regulates business opportunity plans. The trial court did not err by dismissing the individual breach of contract claims under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) or through summary judgment under Civ.R. 56. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in appellees’ favor on the R.C. Chapter 1334 cause of action. The trial court granted appellees’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss appellant’s fraudulent inducement cause of action based upon two conclusions: (1) that the alleged statements constituting fraudulent inducement were precluded by the parol evidence rule; and (2) the complaint’s fraud allegations were insufficient under Civ.R. 9(B). The trial court correctly dismissed the fraudulent inducement allegations set forth in paragraphs 77(a) and (e)-(o) because these allegations conflicted with contractual provisions and, thus, were precluded by the parol evidence rule. But the trial court erred by dismissing the fraudulent inducement allegations set forth in paragraphs 77(b)-(d) because the alleged fraudulent inducement promises were not in conflict with any contractual provision. The trial court correctly dismissed the fraudulent inducement cause of action because the allegations were not sufficient under Civ.R. 9(B), but it erred by dismissing the cause of action with prejudice. Upon remand, appellants should be allowed to file an amended complaint as to paragraphs 77(b)-(d) which conforms to Civ.R. 9(B). The trial court did not err by concluding that appellants’ issuance of IRS Form 1099-MISC to some appellants did not establish, as a matter of law, that appellants had forgiven the repayment of subsidies paid to these appellants. Thus, the trial court did not err by overruling appellants’ motion for summary judgment on appellees’ counterclaim seeking judgment against those appellants who did not repay the subsidies. Finally, the trial court did not err by striking appellants’ Civ.R. 41(A) voluntary notice of dismissal of remaining claims. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. (Froelich, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)TuckerMontgomery 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3297