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 24 rows. Rows per page: 
123
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Steele v. Steele 2020-CA-3Appellant cannot challenge on appeal the trial court’s decision to grant a civil stalking protection order when he failed to file objections in the trial court, as required by Civ.R. 65.1. Judgment affirmed.DonovanChampaign 1/22/2021 1/22/2021 2021-Ohio-148
State v. Baker 28782State’s appeal. The trial court erred in finding that the Reagan Tokes Act violates the separation of powers doctrine and in imposing a definite two-year sentence that was not in accordance with the Reagan Tokes Act. Judgment reversed and remanded for resentencing.DonovanMontgomery 1/22/2021 1/22/2021 2021-Ohio-140
Barrow v. Living Word Dayton 28719The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant failed to obey a discovery order or in finding appellant in contempt for the disobedience. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant and his attorney, jointly and severally, to pay attorney fees as a discovery sanction. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.)HallMontgomery 1/22/2021 1/22/2021 2021-Ohio-141
State v. Davis 28796The State adduced sufficient evidence to support appellant’s convictions for two counts of theft, and his convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Furthermore, appellant received the specific sentence that he requested in a sentencing memorandum filed with the trial court. Pursuant to the doctrine of invited error, he cannot now challenge his sentence as being contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 1/22/2021 1/22/2021 2021-Ohio-142
State v. Dorsey 28754There is no judgment for this court to review on appeal. The notice of appeal filed herein indicates that appellant only appealed from the trial court’s judgment overruling her motion to withdraw her guilty plea to felonious assault in Case No. 2018-CR-4041. In this case, appellant pled guilty to improperly handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, and appellant never moved to withdraw that plea. As a result, there is no judgment in this case for this court to review on appeal. Appeal dismissed.WelbaumMontgomery 1/22/2021 1/22/2021 2021-Ohio-143
Henderson v. Fowler 28765Appellant cannot challenge on appeal the trial court’s denial of a civil protection order when she failed to file objections, as required by Civ.R. 65.1. Moreover, because she failed to file a transcript of the full hearing before the magistrate, we must presume that the evidence supported the magistrate’s findings. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 1/22/2021 1/22/2021 2021-Ohio-144
Mahle Behr Dayton, L.L.C. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. 28772The trial court did not err by dismissing appellants’ claims for unjust enrichment and a violation of equal protection for lack of jurisdiction. The claims sound in law and must be brought in the Court of Claims, which has exclusive jurisdiction over legal claims against appellee. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 1/22/2021 1/22/2021 2021-Ohio-145
McNelly v. Conde 28790The trial court did not err in finding that a rental agreement existed and that appellant breached the agreement by failing to provide a habitable premises. In addition, the court correctly found that a subsequent agreement lacked consideration due to appellant’s breach of the original contract. Due to the allegations of fraud and the need to consider facts relating to habitability, the trial court also did not err in admitting parol evidence. The damages award was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 1/22/2021 1/22/2021 2021-Ohio-146
Rhododendron Holdings, L.L.C. v. Harris 28814Appellant Rhododendron has not identified anywhere in the record where it sought a delay under Civ.R. 56(F) or otherwise alleged prejudice as a result of the trial court’s considering the appellees’ summary-judgment motion without first resolving a pending motion to compel discovery. This failure by Rhododendron waived the issue. The trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of appellee Thomas Bradley Harris on a claim alleging a violation of Ohio’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The record reveals a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Harris misappropriated a trade secret under R.C. 1331.61(B)(2)(b) by knowingly using “design-history files” from a company called NovoSource without consent in a way that violated a duty to limit his use of the files. A trier of fact reasonably might find the existence of such a duty based on testimony about an oral agreement between Harris and Andrew Cothrel, the CEO of NovoSource, limiting Harris’ use of the files. The record reveals no genuine issue of material fact, however, as to whether appellees Andrew Rynearson or Jack Diamond misappropriated the design-history files by impermissibly using them. The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment against appellant Rhododendron on two counts alleging breach of contract. Rhododendron brought the claims as assignee and successor in interest to the rights of NovoSource. But the contracts at issue were not among the NovoSource assets that Rhododendron acquired. The contracts explicitly were excluded from the NovoSource assets that Rhododendron acquired. Finally, the trial court did not err in entering summary judgment against Rhododendron on three other counts. The appellees’ summary-judgment motion partially incorporated by reference arguments made in their earlier motion to dismiss counts one, two, and fourteen. But the act of incorporating by reference arguments made in a prior motion to dismiss did not impermissibly “convert” the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.HallMontgomery 1/22/2021 1/22/2021 2021-Ohio-147
Gevedon v. Decker 2020-CA-21Business partner, appellant, brought suit against second partner and the second partner’s wife, appellee, alleging that the second partner converted business property and used that property to open a competing business and renovate the couple’s home. The trial court properly granted summary judgment to wife on appellant’s civil conspiracy claim based on that conduct. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to wife on conversion claim to the extent that there was evidence that her husband converted the property as a partner in and on behalf of the new competing business in which she was a partner. As to the second partner’s other alleged acts of conversion, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to his wife on appellant’s conversion claim. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.FroelichClark 1/15/2021 1/15/2021 2021-Ohio-77
123