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 253 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Dayton v. International Assoc. of Firefighters, Local 136 27600The litigants, a municipality and a union, are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which, among other things, governs union members’ overtime compensation. The parties, as required by the CBA, submitted an overtime dispute to binding arbitration with the arbitrator ruling in the union’s favor. The trial court vacated the arbitration award finding that the arbitrator, by ignoring unambiguous contractual language, exceeded his authority. The arbitrator’s decision is consistent with a reasonable, appropriate interpretation of the contested contractual language; thus, the arbitrator did not exceed his authority. Judgment reversed and remanded.TuckerMontgomery 7/13/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2746
State v. Clemmons 27769Defendant appeals from a judgment following resentencing for the sole purpose of properly imposing post-release control. Defendant’s assignments of error, all of which relate to pretrial or trial matters, are barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 7/13/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2747
Harson Investments, Ltd. v. Troy 2017-CA-22The trial court did not err in dismissing Appellants’ petition for a writ of mandamus, as Appellants failed to exhaust administrative remedies following the denial of their application for a sign permit. In addition, the trial court did not err in granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to Appellants’ request for a declaratory judgment. The ordinance outlining permissible limits for signage was not ambiguous and clearly limited the total square feet of signage to specific amounts listed in T.C.O. 749.11(o)(1), regardless of the number of tenants in a commercial building. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMiami 7/13/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2748
State v. Hayes 27730Defendant-appellant’s counsel filed a brief under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). A thorough review of the record reveals no arguably meritorious appellate issues. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 7/13/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2749
Holzapfel v. State 2017-CA-13After two dogs were involved in an incident where a woman’s legs were bitten, an animal control officer issued a “dangerous dog” notice to the dog’s owner. At the hearing, the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence which of the two dogs caused the injury. Judgment reversed. (Welbaum, P.J., dissenting.)FroelichDarke 7/13/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2750
State v. Huber 2017-CA-31The State concedes error in the trial court’s award of 87 days of jail time credit, and since the award is not supported in the record, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for a calculation of Huber’s jail time credit.DonovanMiami 7/13/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2751
State v. Kennard 27681Anders appeal. Claims related to the entering of defendant’s guilty plea and the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea without a hearing lack arguable merit. No non-frivolous issues found. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 7/13/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2752
McDonald v. Lacy 27779The trial court did not err by entering summary judgment for Appellees based on political-subdivision immunity. The immunity exception for proprietary functions does not apply to the political subdivision, because the function at issue is governmental. And there is no evidence that the conduct of the political-subdivision employee was wanton or reckless. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 7/13/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2753
Runions v. Burchett 2017-CA-62Trial court did not err when it denied appellant’s application for a concealed carry license (CCL) based upon three felony convictions for which he been pardoned by the governor of Ohio. Significantly, his pardon does not equate with a sealing or expungement of his convictions pursuant to sections 2151.355 to 2151.358, sections 2953.31 to 2953.36, or section 2953.37 of the Revised Code. Since appellant was not convicted of a felony “offense of violence” pursuant to R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), none of his felony convictions caused him to be placed under disability to carry or possess a firearm pursuant to R.C. 2923.13. Because appellant was not under disability, there is no disability to remove. Thus, the pardon did not relieve appellant “under operation of law or legal process from any disability imposed pursuant to section 2923.13 of the Revised Code.” R.C. 2923.125(D)(4). Therefore, the sheriff was required to consider Runions’s unsealed felony convictions in finding him not qualified for a CCL. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 7/13/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2754
Schwenn v. Schwenn 2017-CA-48The trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the award of parenting time or spousal support. However, the trial court, because of the use of an incorrect pre-marital value, did err in its division of an IRA retirement account. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.TuckerGreene 7/13/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2755