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 402 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Foster v. Foster 106173Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; fraud; final appealable order; R.C. 2505.02; Civ.R. 54; statute of limitations; R.C. 2305.09; discovery rule; constructive knowledge; cognizable event; laches. Appellant failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to when the statute of limitations for his fraud claims began to run. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted appellees' motion for summary judgment.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 5/17/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1961
State v. Kronenberg 106118R.C. 2903.211/ menacing by stalking; Crim.R. 7(B)/indictment; sufficiency; consecutive sentences. The trial court did not err by considering appellant's prior history. Evidence showed that appellant harassed the victims for over 15 years causing the victims mental distress and creating fear in the victims and was sufficient enough to establish that appellant engaged in a pattern of conduct toward the victims.JonesCuyahoga 5/17/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1962
State v. Walton 106103Anders; nonfrivolous issue; guilty plea; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); plea agreement; breach; R.C. 2929.12; due process; juvenile adjudication. An independent review of the record reveals that there are no nonfrivolous issues to argue in this case involving appellant's guilty plea or the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. The prosecutor's statements during the sentencing hearing did not constitute a breach of the parties' plea agreement. The trial court did not err or violate appellant's due process rights by considering appellant's juvenile record during the sentencing hearing.WaltonCuyahoga 5/17/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1963
State v. Hicks 106101Guilty plea; motion to withdraw; ineffective assistance of counsel; Crim.R. 32.1; hybrid representation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold a hearing on appellant's pro se request to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant was not denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 5/17/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1964
State v. Greene 106028Community control sanctions; violation; probable cause; revocation; due process; plain error; Crim.R. 52; substantial evidence; R.C. 2929.15. The trial court did not commit plain error by consolidating the preliminary probable cause hearing and the revocation hearing into a single hearing, and appellant was not prejudice by the trial court's failure to hold two separate hearings. The trial court's determination that appellant violated the terms of his community control sanctions is not supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in revoking appellant's community control sanctions and imposing a prison sentence.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 5/17/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1965
Georgetown of the Highlands Condominium Owners' Assn. v. Nsong 106025Civ.R. 56(C)/summary judgment; dispositive motion; R.C. 5311.18(C)/discharge of condominium liens; Evid.R. 702/expert witness/attorney fees; relief from judgment. Where appellee filed its motion for summary judgment and appellant did not oppose the motion disputing the alleged amount owed or file any dispositive motion to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to appellant's counterclaims, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting appellee's motion. Appellant failed to establish that her property was trespassed against by an unauthorized intentional act; neither was appellee negligent in the manner in which it responded to the emergency situation going on in appellant's unit. Appellant's argument disputing the amount owed to appellee failed where appellant did not oppose appellee's summary judgment motion. Appellant's invasion of privacy claim fails where appellant failed to show that appellee made any type of public disclosure about appellant that would have put appellant in a false light. Based on the terms of the association's declaration and bylaws, appellee was permitted to enter appellant's unit where an emergency existed. Appellant's breach of contract claim fails. The expert witness established that the attorney's hourly rate charged was reasonable and appellant failed to present any evidence that the fees charged were unreasonable. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for relief from judgment. It was established that appellant was indebted to the United States and appellant failed to present evidence demonstrating otherwise.JonesCuyahoga 5/17/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1966
State v. McCullough 105959Motion to dismiss, Cleveland Municipal Court, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Crim.R. 48(B), harmless error. The trial court did not err by granting the appellee's motion to dismiss because the appellee had a reasonable belief that his plea agreement and sentence from municipal court barred any subsequent felony charges in common pleas court. The trial court did not fully comply with Crim.R. 48(B) and state on the record its findings of fact and reasons for dismissing the indictment, but the error was harmless because the reasoning is evident in the hearing transcript.MaysCuyahoga 5/17/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1967
State v. Eaton 105926; 105927Crim.R. 13/joinder of offenses/indictment; ineffective assistance of counsel. The multiple indictments were properly tried together. Evidence showed that the offenses shared a common purpose, motive or scheme and involved the same victim. Moreover, trial was continued so that the cases could be tried together and appellant was aware both cases would be tried together. Appellant failed to show that his trial counsel's representation fell below the objective standard of reasonableness.JonesCuyahoga 5/17/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1968
Estate of Hunter v. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. 105851Medicaid; benefits; state hearing; notice. Trial court did not err by affirming administrative decision denying Medicaid benefits because party who failed to pursue administrative appeal in first application for benefits could not raise the issue in a subsequent application for benefits.StewartCuyahoga 5/17/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1969
State v. Foreman 105717Intervention in lieu of conviction; eligible offense; R.C. 2951.041. The trial court erred by granting appellee's motion for intervention in lieu of conviction on Counts 1 and 3 because the eligibility requirement set forth in R.C. 2951.041(B)(7) was not satisfied. The trial court did not err by granting appellee's motion on the remaining counts in the indictment that are eligible offenses.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 5/17/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1970
12345678910...>>