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
To search on full text click here
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 15 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re A.P. 28023Appellant-Father did not file objections to a magistrate’s decision overruling his motion for contempt regarding visitation and his motion seeking a custody change. Appellate review, therefore, is confined to a plain error analysis. But a claim that a judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence, as Appellant asserts, is not subject to a plain error analysis. Further, a review of the record does not reveal that overruling either motion constituted an abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 1/18/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-139
In re M.W. 28046; 28065In permanent custody case, appointed counsel filed briefs for Father and Mother pursuant to Anders v. California, identifying no issues with arguable merit and concluding that the juvenile court’s judgment granting custody of M.W. to MCCS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Arguments raised in Mother’s and Father’s identical briefs following the Anders brief lack merit; the juvenile court was not required to factor adoption possibilities into its analysis. The grant of permanent custody to MCCS was in the child’s best interest. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 1/18/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-140
McGlothen v. Fairborn 2018-CA-30The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to Appellee on Appellant’s claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, as expressed in sections 106.1 and 307.1 of the Ohio Building Code. Neither section expresses a clear public policy prohibiting retaliatory employment action. Judgment affirmed.HallGreene 1/18/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-141
State v. Taylor 2018-CA-9Taylor was convicted of domestic violence, and his argument that R.C. 2919.25 is “unconstitutionally overbroad” fails. With respect to the victim’s 9-1-1 recording and her recorded conversations with Taylor while he was in jail, plain error is not demonstrated in defense counsel’s failure to object or in the trial court’s admission of this evidence. Plain error also is not demonstrated in the jury instructions regarding or the prosecutor’s remarks in closing argument about consciousness of guilt. Taylor was not denied the right to confront his accuser. Taylor’s convictions for aggravated burglary, carrying a concealed weapon, domestic violence, aggravated menacing, and domestic violence were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Taylor’s handgun was subject to forfeiture. Taylor’s right to a speedy trial was not violated. Judgment affirmed.DonovanGreene 1/18/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-142
State v. Teater 27753The trial court did not err by preventing Appellant from cross-examining a witness about the witness’s drug use. Appellant did not make the argument regarding relevancy of the anticipated evidence in the trial court that he makes on appeal, and even if he had, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the evidence. Moreover, Appellant forfeited all but plain error with respect to the issue raised. Appellant did not argue plain error on appeal. Even if he had, the trial court’s ruling was not plainly erroneous. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., concurs.)HallMontgomery 1/18/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-143
State v. Turner 2017-CA-78Where Defendant charged with purposeful murder testified that he did not realize his handgun was loaded, he did not pull the trigger, and the gun “just went off” during a struggle with someone who grabbed the weapon from inside a vehicle that was pulling away, the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of reckless homicide. Judgment reversed on that conviction, affirmed as to all other convictions, and remanded for further proceedings. (Hall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.)FroelichClark 1/18/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-144
Bledsoe-Baker v. Trotwood 28052The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s motion for summary judgment on its political subdivision immunity. The appellees adduced evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the appellant was negligent for the manner in which it chose to clear the blockage from the sewer line which allegedly resulted in a sewage backup in the appellees’ basement. Furthermore, the appellant’s decision to force water into the sewer line with the Jet-Vac truck was not a discretionary decision pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A)(5), because the appellant provided no evidence of any specific decision that it made regarding its alleged negligence that involved weighing alternatives or a high degree of official judgment or discretion. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that genuine issues of material fact exist and that the appellant was not entitled to summary judgment as to the issue of immunity. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 1/11/2019 1/11/2019 2019-Ohio-45
State v. Brady 27763The trial court did not err by overruling either of Appellant’s motions to suppress. There was no Miranda violation, because Appellant was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Rather, he was lawfully detained for investigatory purposes. Appellant’s consent to search his car was valid. When the officer asked for the consent, Appellant was being detained lawfully. The officer did not need a particular reason to search the car. Brady did not establish a violation of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), because he failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that the affidavit supporting the warrant to search a USB drive contained a false or misleading statement. The affidavit provided a substantial basis to find probable cause that the USB drive contained evidence of sexual assault. The 77-year aggregate prison sentence imposed by the trial court was not contrary to law. The sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, because each individual prison sentence was within the authorized statutory range. The record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. Videos found on a USB drive show Appellant raping his daughter on numerous occasions. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring.) (Donovan, J., concurring in both the majority opinion and the concurring opinion.)HallMontgomery 1/11/2019 1/11/2019 2019-Ohio-46
State v. Farris 2018-CA-55After reviewing the entire record as prescribed by Anders, we find no issues with arguable merit. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 1/11/2019 1/11/2019 2019-Ohio-47
Fayette Drywall, Inc. v. Oettinger 28059Upon motion, a trial court, under R.C. 2711.02(B), must stay litigation when the movant establishes that it is a party to a written contract which includes an arbitration provision, that an issue presented by the litigation is referable to arbitration, and that the movant is not in default in proceeding with the arbitration. The motion before the trial court met these requirements. Further, the presence of claims or parties that are not subject to the arbitration provision is not a basis upon which a trial court may deny a stay as to such claims or parties. Thus, the trial court erred when it did not stay the litigation as to claims and parties not subject to the arbitration provision. Judgment reversed and remanded. (Hall, J., concurring in judgment only.)TuckerMontgomery 1/11/2019 1/11/2019 2019-Ohio-48