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 574 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Riffle 107352Search warrant; motion to suppress; ineffective assistance of counsel; Miranda rights; inevitable discovery doctrine; Brady violation; anonymous tip; motion in limine; introduction and presentation of firearms. Pursuant to the execution of a valid search warrant, police officers found marijuana and firearms in defendant’s home that led to his subsequent convictions. Defendant was not prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed: (1) to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant, (2) to obtain a copy of an anonymous Crime Stoppers email stating defendant was allegedly growing marijuana in his backyard, and (3) to file a motion in limine preventing the introduction and presentation of multiple firearms to the jury.HeadenCuyahoga 8/15/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3271
Pollock v. Trustar Funding, L.L.C. 107355 & 107679Settlement agreement; post-default litigation. The trial court did not err in enforcing the parties’ original settlement agreement when the evidence did not support appellant’s contention that a new settlement agreement was reached by the parties subsequent to appellees’ default under the original settlement agreement.SheehanCuyahoga 8/15/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3272
C.S.J. v. S.E.J. 107401Civ.R. 65.1; Civ.R. 36; R.C. 3113.31; civil domestic violence protection order; service; jurisdiction. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request to deem matters admitted; trial court had jurisdiction over appellant in hearing on civil domestic violence protection order.BlackmonCuyahoga 8/15/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3273
Williams v. McMillian 107570R.C. 5321.16(B); security deposit; wrongfully withheld; proof of damages; manifest weight. The trial court erred in awarding the tenant damages based on the landlord’s failure to itemize the security deposit because the deposit was not “wrongfully withheld” as contemplated under R.C. 5321.16(B) and also erred in awarding damages for the tenant’s decision to rent a post office box and for the cost of the food items that were lost because of a malfunctioning refrigerator. The judgment in favor of the landlord based on unpaid rent and damage to the property was not against the weight of the evidence.S. GallagherCuyahoga 8/15/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3275
State v Hale 107646Double jeopardy; plain error; ineffective assistance of counsel; conflict of interest; prior representation of codefendant; R.C. 2317.02(A)(1); attorney-client privilege; voluntary disclosure of attorney-client communications; waiver; Prof.Cond.R. 1.6; Crim.R. 29(A); sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); consecutive sentence findings; sentencing journal entry; nunc pro tunc. Defendant’s convictions did not violate double jeopardy. Because jeopardy did not attach until jury was empaneled and sworn, charges against defendant in prior case could be dismissed and he could be reindicted. Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s prior representation of codefendant on similar charges. Defendant did not show an actual conflict of interest or that the result of defendant’s trial was adversely affected by any conflict of interest. Defendant chose to retain defense counsel after he successfully represented codefendant and knowingly and expressly waived any potential conflict of interest arising from defense counsel’s successive representation of defendant and codefendant. Trial court did not err in allowing former defense counsel to testify regarding defendant’s claim that former counsel told defendant to lie to police and the court in order to obtain plea deal. Defendant’s prior testimony regarding his communications with his former attorneys waived attorney-client privilege. Defendant’s convictions and guilty findings for murder, aggravated robbery, having a weapon while under a disability and perjury were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court made the requisite findings for imposing consecutive sentences at the sentencing hearing but failed to incorporate all of those findings in its sentencing journal entry. Case remanded for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc order correcting the consecutive-sentence findings made in its sentencing journal entry to conform to the consecutive sentence findings made at the sentencing hearing. E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 8/15/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3276
Thompson v. Lyndhurst 107695R.C. 2953.321/sealed criminal records; subject-matter jurisdiction; termination of employment; 42 U.S.C. 1983 and R.C. 2744.02(a)(1)/ immunity; implied contract; breach; summary judgment. A party cannot raise for the first time on appeal arguments that were not presented in the trial court. Appellant failed to plead in her complaint allegations that appellee violated her rights in violation of public policy and that appellee violated her rights by using privileged and sealed records in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Ohio Constitution to terminate her employment. Those two issues are not properly before this court. The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellant failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and further failed to allege any statutory claims. The trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction where appellant’s claims were subject to a collective bargaining agreement. Appellant failed to plead a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. Nonetheless, under R.C. Chapter 2744, appellee is a political subdivision, and appellant failed to establish any exceptions that would apply here and summary judgment was properly granted on this issue. Appellant provided no evidence that the detective acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on this issue.tJonesCuyahoga 8/15/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3277
State v. Rodriquez 107720Bias; prejudiced judge; due process; agreed sentencing range. Sentence affirmed where there was no evidence of judicial bias or prejudice against the defendant. Sentence imposed by the court was authorized by law and jointly recommended by the parties and, therefore, not subject to appellate review.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 8/15/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3278
Stratton v. Stratton 107798R.C. 3105.171; equal division of marital property; inequitable. R.C. 3105.171 directs a trial court to equitably divide the parties’ marital property. An equitable division of marital property generally involves an equal division of marital property. However, if an equal division of marital property would be inequitable, the court shall not divide the marital property equally but instead shall divide it between the spouses in the manner the court determines equitable. In order to determine what is equitable, the trial court must consider the factors outlined in R.C. 3105.171(F). Such factors include, among others, the duration of the marriage, the assets and liabilities of the spouses, tax consequences of the property division, any retirement benefits of the spouses, and any other factor the court expressly finds to be relevant and equitable.KilbaneCuyahoga 8/15/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3279
Cleveland v. Collins 107814Misdemeanor; violation; failure to comply; building department; plea; not guilty; admission; factual allegations; R.C. 2937.07; explanation of circumstances; proffer; procedural; conviction; reversed; vacated. Reversed the trial court’s judgment and vacated appellant’s conviction for failure to comply with an order of the Cleveland Building Department. Trial court erred by accepting appellant’s “no contest” plea when factual allegations in the complaint stated that notice of the violations was sent to another person and the record demonstrated that appellant did not receive proper notice of the violations. The explanation-of-circumstances requirement in R.C. 2937.07 affords a procedural protection and permits the court to find a defendant not guilty when the facts of the case do not rise to the level of a criminal violation.S. GallagherCuyahoga 8/15/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3280
Cleveland v. Perkins 107816Assault; petty theft; insufficient evidence; manifest weight; ineffective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed. The failure of trial counsel to move for a judgment of acquittal under Crim.R. 29 does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel when the state’s case-in-chief links the defendant to the crimes of which he is accused. Defendant’s convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the trial court weighed the strength and credibility of the evidence presented and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, and found defendant guilty. KilbaneCuyahoga 8/15/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3281
12345678910...>>