Opinion Search

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:

Source:

Year Decided From:

Year Decided To:

Year Decided Range Warning:

The selected 'Year Decided To:' is less than the selected 'Year Decided From:'.  Please select a 'To:' year newer than or equal to the 'From:' year.

County:

Case Number:

Author:

Topics and Issues:

WebCite No:	-Ohio-	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:

Hide Topics and Issues column

This search returned 6 rows.

Rows per page:

Case Caption	Case No.	Topics and Issues	Author	Citation / County	Decided	Posted	WebCite
State v. Latham	2025-CA-9	The trial court did not err in failing to impose the sentence the parties jointly recommended in their plea agreement. The court informed appellant that it was not bound by the agreement and informed appellant of the possible range of sentences he could receive. In addition, the sentence is not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.	Hanseman	Champaign	1/2/2026	1/2/2026	2026-Ohio-6
State v. Holden	2025-CA-27	Appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because it is within the statutory range, and the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12. Judgment affirmed.	Epley	Miami	1/2/2026	1/2/2026	2026-Ohio-3
Capital One, N.A. v. Campbell	30577	The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee and in dismissing appellant’s counterclaim. Appellee provided appropriate and authenticated information to substantiate its claim for recovery on appellant’s unpaid credit card account. Appellant failed to respond to appellee’s summary judgment motion and failed to submit any proper Civ.R. 56 materials. Under a plain error analysis, no error or plain error occurred. Appellant’s asserted defenses to the complaint and his counterclaim were also purely frivolous. Judgment affirmed.	Hanseman	Montgomery	1/2/2026	1/2/2026	2026-Ohio-1
State v. Eichenlaub	30455	The trial court properly overruled the appellant’s motion to suppress statements that were not the product of a custodial interrogation. The trial court did not err in refusing to order separate trials where the evidence supporting two separate indictments was simple and distinct. The appellant’s convictions are supported by legally sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.	Tucker	Montgomery	1/2/2026	1/2/2026	2026-Ohio-2
In re J.H.	30528, 30529, 30530, 30531, 30532	Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion or violate mother’s right to due process by denying her oral motion for a continuance to allow her to attend the permanent custody hearing virtually from prison. Judgment affirmed.	Epley	Montgomery	1/2/2026	1/2/2026	2026-Ohio-4
Jones v. Jones	30508	On remand, the trial court correctly decided that appellee owed appellant interest on $1,770.46, with this amount being the difference between the marital assets awarded appellant and appellee. This result was equitable and compliant with R.C. 1343.03(A). Judgment affirmed.	Tucker	Montgomery	1/2/2026	1/2/2026	2026-Ohio-5