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 622 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Hart 105673Preindictment delay; due process; faded memories; deceased witnesses; unavailable; other acts evidence; Evid.R. 404(B); unfair prejudice. Trial court properly denied defendant’s motion dismiss for preindictment delay where defendant failed to establish actual prejudice caused by the delay. Trial court’s decision to allow evidence of defendant’s prior sex crime into evidence was an abuse of discretion that resulted in unfair prejudice in violation of Evid.R. 404(B).GallagherCuyahoga 8/16/2018 8/16/2018 2018-Ohio-3272
State v. Barnes 105964R.C. 2505.02, final appealable order, R.C. 2505.02(B)(4), provisional remedy, motion to withdraw, office of the public defender, Prof.Cond.R. 1.7, conflict of interest, Prof.Cond.R. 1.9, duty of confidentiality. The motion to withdraw due to conflict of interest and duty of confidentiality is a final appealable order. The elements of a provisional remedy have been met. The office of the public defender is a firm pursuant to the Professional Rules of Conduct. Because the office of the public defender represented a former client who is the alleged victim in the instant case, issues of confidentiality and conflicts of interest arose, resulting in whether counsel would zealously represent the defendant. The defendant would not be afforded a meaningful and effective remedy after trial by way of appeal. Mays Cuyahoga 8/16/2018 8/16/2018 2018-Ohio-3273
Heba El Attar v. Marine Towers E. Condominium owner's Assn. 106140Judgment on the pleadings; condominium declaration and bylaws; reserve fund. Trial court erred by granting judgment on the pleadings where the evidence showed condominium association failed to “build up and maintain a reasonable reserve” as required by its bylaws. StewartCuyahoga 8/16/2018 8/16/2018 2018-Ohio-3274
In re T.W. 106231Evid.R. 807; delinquency; independent proof; Evid.R. 702; bootstrapping rule; R.C. 2905.01; R.C. 2907.05; R.C. 2907.02; sufficiency of the evidence; force; restraint; implied force; gross sexual imposition; lesser included offense. The state failed to present independent proof of the sexual act under Evid.R. 807 for the purposes of admitting the incompetent victim’s testimony at trial, and the state failed to present sufficient evidence of force or restraint for the purposes of the rape and kidnapping convictions. In this case, gross sexual imposition was improperly considered as the lesser included offense of the statutory rape count with which the juvenile was charged.GallagherCuyahoga 8/16/2018 8/16/2018 2018-Ohio-3275
UBS Fin. Servs. Inc. v. Lacava 106260Fraudulent conveyance; venue; compensatory damages; punitive damages; attorney fees; statutory exemptions; summary judgment. The case was properly disposed of in the county where prior, related proceedings occurred. The record demonstrated that there was no genuine issue of material fact that defendant-appellant engaged in a fraudulent transfer; summary judgment therefore was properly granted in favor of the plaintiff-appellee. The record supported the trial court’s award of compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney fees. The statutory exemptions relative to damages were inapplicable.J. Jones Cuyahoga 8/16/2018 8/16/2018 2018-Ohio-3276
State v. Martemus 106327Ineffective assistance of counsel; manifest weight of the evidence; in-court identification; DNA evidence. Trial counsel is not ineffective for not moving to suppress an in-court identification. Cross-examination of a witness challenges such an identification. Convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the evidence supporting the conviction is not rebutted. StewartCuyahoga 8/16/2018 8/16/2018 2018-Ohio-3277
State v. Brownlee 106395Drug trafficking; criminal tools; Evid.R. 801(C); plain error; allied offenses. The trial court did not err by permitting a police officer to testify about observations made during his surveillance of a controlled-drug transaction; the conviction for drug trafficking and possession of criminal tools was not against the weight of the evidence in light of the video surveillance depicting the defendant’s conduct; and the imposition of separate sentences on drug trafficking and the possession of criminal tools did not amount to plain error.GallagherCuyahoga 8/16/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3308
State v. Kind 106413Weapons while under disability; manifest weight of the evidence; sufficient evidence; R.C. 2903.12. Weapons while under disability conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence even though jury acquitted appellant of all charges tried to the jury; the trial court, as trier of fact on weapons while under disability charge, was free to assess the testimony of the witnesses and find that the eyewitness testimony proved the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.J. Jones Cuyahoga 8/16/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3309
State v. Greiner 106426Murder; purpose; ineffective assistance of counsel; authentication; weight of the evidence. Authentication of evidence has a low threshold that requires the proponent of the evidence to make a prima facie showing of genuineness and leaves it to the jury to decide the true authenticity and probative value of the evidence. The court did not abuse its discretion allowing into evidence an undated, unsigned letter found in the defendant’s bedroom because the letter, professing defendant’s love and desire to marry, was consistent with evidence showing the relationship between the defendant and the victim. StewartCuyahoga 8/16/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3310
In re M.B 106434Juvenile; serious youth offender; sentence; objection; privilege; R.C. 2317.02(A); invocation hearing; confrontation clause; testimonial; waived; criminal proceeding; rehabilitated; ineffective assistance of counsel; amenability; mental health; journal entry; findings; R.C. 2152.14(E); sufficient; clear and convincing evidence. The trial court did not err by limiting the scope of defense counsel’s cross-examination of the state’s witness. The trial court’s finding that appellant is unlikely to be rehabilitated during the remaining period of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction is supported by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court made all necessary findings as required under R.C. 2152.14(E)(1). Appellant was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel at the invocation hearing.GallagherCuyahoga 8/16/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3311