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 17 rows. Rows per page: 
12
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Thomas L-19-1108Trial court order properly denied appellant’s motion to intervene. Judgment affirmed. Intervenion, abuse of discretion, forfeitureOsowikLucas 1/22/2021 1/22/2021 2021-Ohio-151
State v. Halka WD-19-061Judgment affirmed as to drug offenses, but reversed and vacated as to conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, as generalized testimony of the existence of drug cartels and past investigations of cartel activity does not establish the existence of an enterprise with a solo drug dealer in a particular case, lacking any evidence linking the defendant to the cartel.OsowikWood 1/22/2021 1/22/2021 2021-Ohio-149
State v. Smith WD-19-082Trial court decision to impose consecutive sentences affirmed because the trial court made the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and in its judgment entry, and the record supports the trial court’s findings.MayleWood 1/22/2021 1/22/2021 2021-Ohio-150
State v. Mitten S-19-056Sentence supported by clear and convincing evidence; guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made; denial of motion to withdraw plea was not an abuse of discretion.SingerSandusky 1/15/2021 1/15/2021 2021-Ohio-89
State v. Baldwin WD-18-064Trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence that defendant’s brother threatened witness where defendant was not shown to have been involved in those threats and threats were not offered for proper purpose such as to explain why a witness’s story changed or why a witness did not immediately come forward to police. Reversal was required because state failed to show that admission of improper evidence did not affect defendant’s substantial rights.MayleWood 1/15/2021 1/15/2021 2021-Ohio-84
Davis v. Johnson L-19-1268Action properly commenced against appellant where his first name was incorrectly stated in the caption of the complaint, but the body of the complaint and all subsequent filings used his correct name. Service by ordinary mail proper where sent to correct address with correct surname and not returned. Default judgment award that is different in kind than that prayed for is ground for relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5).SingerLucas 1/15/2021 1/15/2021 2021-Ohio-85
State v. Lamb L-19-1177Lucas County Juvenile Court did not err in appellant’s probable cause bindover hearing. The transfer of appellant’s murder case to the adult division of the Lucas County Common Pleas Court was not improper. Judgment affirmed.OsowikLucas 1/15/2021 1/15/2021 2021-Ohio-87
State v. Massucci L-19-1302Ineffective assistance of counsel-admission of medical recordsDelaneyLucas 1/15/2021 1/15/2021 2021-Ohio-88
State v. Hearn E-19-067, E-19-076, E-19-077, E-19-078Where court imposed consecutive sentences in multiple judgment entries and applied full amount of jail-time credit in one judgment entry and zero days credit in second judgment entry, concern that error could occur should the first sentence someday be declared void raises only a potential controversy. Judgments currently and correctly reflect single reduction to aggregate sentence. Appellant fails to explain how jail-time credit was miscalculated and error is not evident from the record.MayleErie 1/15/2021 1/15/2021 2021-Ohio-86
State v. Anderson L-18-1110Appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the trial court's partial compliance with Crim.R. 11. Trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with court of appeals' remand instructions while the appeal was pending in the Ohio Supreme Court.PietrykowskiLucas 1/8/2021 1/8/2021 2021-Ohio-22
12