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 296 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Buckney 2019-CA-75The record establishes that appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at his resentencing hearing. Although the 13-year delay in resentencing was a “serious administrative lapse” and inexcusable, appellant was not prejudiced by the delay between our remand in State v. Buckney, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2005-CA-56, 2006-Ohio-4148, issued in August 2006, and the limited resentencing hearing held in September 2019; he remained lawfully incarcerated during the delay due to the length of his sentence. Appellant’s merger argument was barred by res judicata because he failed to raise the argument in his direct appeal of his 2005 convictions. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 2020-Ohio-4927
State v. Johnson 2019-CA-18The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s motion for acquittal on a charge of domestic violence; there was sufficient evidence that appellant caused the victim to believe that he would cause the victim imminent physical harm. The conviction also was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the trial court did not lose its way in finding that appellant caused the victim to believe that he would cause the victim imminent physical harm. Lastly, the trial court did not err by rejecting appellant’s claim that he acted in self-defense, as the evidence did not establish the defense. Judgment affirmed.HallDarke 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 2020-Ohio-4928
State v. Sparks 2019-CA-78The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding appellant guilty of aggravated possession of drugs. A police officer’s testimony that a pipe containing trace amounts of methamphetamine was found in a pocket of a coat appellant was wearing supported an inference that appellant knew the pipe was there. The officer’s failure to detect the pipe during an initial pat-down of appellant or to question him about the pipe did not negate an inference of knowledge, nor did appellant’s intoxication. The verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.FroelichGreene 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 2020-Ohio-4930
In re P.S. 28812The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by granting legal custody of appellant’s child to the child’s foster parents. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 2020-Ohio-4929
State ex rel. Jones v. Dayton Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn. 28637A public school treasurer was not entitled to additional damages based on the school board’s failure to send him further notices of nonrenewal after he was reemployed by operation of law pursuant to R.C. 3313.22(A). Under the statute, the treasurer was entitled to only a one-year term of reemployment, and the trial court did not err in limiting damages to one year. The trial court did err in failing to award the treasurer attorney fees based on the school board’s violation of R.C. 121.22(F). Under R.C. 121.22(I)(2)(a), a well-informed school board would reasonably have believed, based on ordinary application of the law, that it was violating or threatening to violate R.C. 121.22. Furthermore, a well-informed school board reasonably would have believed that its conduct would not serve public policy. Finally, the trial court also erred in adding damages that were not statutorily authorized under R.C. 3313.22(A), which allows recovery only of the treasurer’s salary and increments. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. (Hall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.)WelbaumMontgomery 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 2020-Ohio-4931
State v. Harwell 28697The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s motion to vacate sentence without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The trial court properly concluded that appellant’s claims were barred by res judicata. The record does not support appellant’s contention that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment against him. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 10/9/2020 10/9/2020 2020-Ohio-4845
In re R.A. 28806Children Services agency made reasonable efforts at reunification. The juvenile court did not err in finding that reunification was not possible within a reasonable time or in concluding that granting legal custody to grandmother was in the child’s best interest. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying counsel’s last-minute motions to withdraw and for a continuance of the hearing on the agency’s motion for legal custody of the child to grandmother. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 10/9/2020 10/9/2020 2020-Ohio-4846
State v. Irvin 28495Appellant was convicted of murder and tampering with evidence. Because of the murder conviction, the trial court ordered appellant to enroll in the Violent Offender Database (VOD) upon his release from prison. Requiring appellant to enroll in the VOD did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the burden-shifting changes to Ohio’s self-defense statute made by H.B. 228 (R.C. 2901.05), because the murder occurred before its effective date. Appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., dissenting.)TuckerMontgomery 10/9/2020 10/9/2020 2020-Ohio-4847
State v. Mallory 28685The trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. What began as a consensual encounter between a task force officer and appellant, a bus passenger, morphed into a Terry stop. The officers’ search and seizure of appellant’s backpack was not a reasonable precautionary measure, because the totality of the circumstances did not create a reasonable suspicion that appellant was armed and dangerous. Judgment reversed and remanded. (Welbaum, J., dissenting.)DonovanMontgomery 10/9/2020 10/9/2020 2020-Ohio-4848
Million v. Million 28651The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the parties’ minor child’s Adoptive Assistance stipend checks could not be applied so as to relieve Father of his child support obligation and that the stipend checks also were not a basis for a deviation from the child support guidelines for the purposes of Father’s child support computation. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 10/9/2020 10/9/2020 2020-Ohio-4849