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
To search on full text click here
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 25 rows. Rows per page: 
123
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Kolosai v. Azem 102920Enforcement of arbitration agreement, law-of-the-case doctrine, Civ.R. 60(B), Evid.R. 702, expert witness, manifest weight of the evidence. A trial court’s reversal and remand places the parties in the same position they were in prior to the error. A trial court’s determination of an expert witness’s qualification will not be reversed unless the trial court clearly abused its discretion. The trial court’s finding that the signature on the arbitration agreement was valid is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.Laster MaysCuyahoga 1/10/2019 1/14/2019 2019-Ohio-66
State v. Underwood 106597Felony sentence; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; minimum. Judgment affirmed where appellant failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support his sentences under the relevant statutes or that his sentences were contrary to law. The record reflected that the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12. Appellant failed to show that the trial court erred by imposing more than the minimum sentence.GallagherCuyahoga 1/10/2019 1/14/2019 2019-Ohio-67
In re K.A.Y. 106788Motion to vacate restraining order; juvenile court custody proceeding; Civ.R. 65. Juvenile court erred in denying motion to vacate restraining order that precluded paternal grandmother from having contact with mother. Even assuming juvenile court had authority to issue a restraining order in custody action under Civ.R. 65, restraining order at issue did not comply with Civ.R. 65(D). Restraining order did not set forth the reasons for its issuance, was unlimited in time, and was not sufficiently specific as to its terms. Further, there were issues both with the manner in which juvenile court joined grandmother as party for purposes of issuing the restraining order and the manner in which the restraining order was issued. Mother conceded that juvenile court erred in ordering grandmother to pay mother’s attorney fees and legal expenses associated with grandmother’s motion to vacate the restraining order.GallagherCuyahoga 1/10/2019 1/14/2019 2019-Ohio-68
State v. Williams 106820Habitual sexual offender; Megan’s Law; retroactive application constitutional; former R.C. 2950.06; State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753; State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 407, 1998-Ohio-291, 700 N.E.2d 570. Judgment affirmed. Defendant presented no evidence of any judgment that he was required to register under the registration laws that preceded Megan’s Law. The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected claims that the retroactive application of Megan’s Law is unconstitutional. As a result, the trial court was within its authority to classify the defendant as an habitual sex offender with a twenty-year registration requirement.KilbaneCuyahoga 1/10/2019 1/14/2019 2019-Ohio-69
Adkins v. Women's Welsh Club of Am. 106859Civ.R. 10(D)(2); affidavit of merit; medical claim; refiled action; extension; good cause; dismiss; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); Civ.R. 41(B)(1); notice; opportunity to respond. Although the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding appellant failed to demonstrate good cause warranting an extension of time to file an affidavit of merit in a refiled medical malpractice action, the court erred by dismissing the action without affording appellant notice and an opportunity to respond. Case was remanded with instructions to grant plaintiff-appellant an opportunity to respond by filing an affidavit of merit as required by Civ.R. 12(D)(2)(a), or by providing further information to show “good cause” warranting an extension pursuant to Civ.R. 10(D)(2)(b) and (c).GallagherCuyahoga 1/10/2019 1/14/2019 2019-Ohio-70
State v. Kilton 106864Intimidation of a witness; obstructing official business; domestic violence; sufficiency; manifest weight; credibility. Appellant’s convictions for kidnapping, intimidation of a witness, and obstructing official business were affirmed. The evidence was legally sufficient to support the verdicts, and the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.GallagherCuyahoga 1/10/2019 1/14/2019 2019-Ohio-87
State v. Perkins 106877; 107155Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); supported by the record. Imposition of consecutive sentences affirmed where trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) were supported by the record.KeoughCuyahoga 1/10/2019 1/14/2019 2019-Ohio-88
Parrish v. Cavaliers Holding, L.L.C. 106911Civ.R. 56; summary judgment; R.C. 4123.01(C); workers’ compensation benefits; “coming-and-going rule”; “zone of employment”; totality of the circumstances. The trial court correctly found that Parrish was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, and properly granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment and denied Parrish’s partial motion for summary judgment. Parrish was not within the “zone of employment” when he was injured. Further, there is no causal connection between Parrish’s injury and his employment based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the accident. CelebrezzeCuyahoga 1/10/2019 1/14/2019 2019-Ohio-89
State v. Frost 106964Sufficiency; manifest weight. A claim of insufficient evidence raises the question whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict as a matter of law. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In contrast to a sufficiency argument, a manifest weight challenge questions whether the state met its burden of persuasion. A reviewing court weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. A conviction should be reversed as against the manifest weight of the evidence only in the most exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.KilbaneCuyahoga 1/10/2019 1/15/2019 2019-Ohio-93
Juergens v. House of LaRose, Inc. 106972Summary judgment; opportunity to arbitrate grievance; collective bargaining agreement; agreement to arbitrate; statutory age discrimination claim; statute of limitations; R.C. 4112.02; 180 days; grievance procedure; tolling; R.C. 4112.14; alternative pleading; Civ.R. 56(F) motion. Trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendant-employer where plaintiff-employee’s age discrimination claim under R.C. 4112.02 was barred by the 180-day statute of limitations; the allegation in plaintiff’s complaint that he was a member of a protected class under R.C. 4112.14 did not alternatively plead a cause of action under R.C. 4112.14; plaintiff’s use of the grievance procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement did not toll the statute of limitations.KeoughCuyahoga 1/10/2019 1/15/2019 2019-Ohio-94
123