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 20 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Forrest 10230Plea; speedy trial; constitutional; delay; prejudice. - Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated where the delay was mostly attributed to the defendant and no prejudice from the delay was shown.KeoughCuyahoga 1/21/2021 1/21/2021 2021-Ohio-122
State v. Jenkins 109323Constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Act; S.B. 201; failure to object to sentence; manifest weight of the evidence.BoyleCuyahoga 1/21/2021 1/21/2021 2021-Ohio-123
Sebold v. Latina Design Build Group, L.L.C. 109362Motion to stay and to compel arbitration; unconscionable arbitration clause; R.C. Chapter 2711; Ohio Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA). Appellants failed to prove that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable and further failed to show that their claims fell outside of their agreement to arbitrate. There was no abuse of discretion where the trial court granted appellees’ motion to stay trial and compel arbitration. Whether the contract is void based on a HSSA violation is left to the arbitrator, and, here, that claim is premature.JonesCuyahoga 1/21/2021 1/21/2021 2021-Ohio-124
State v. Travis 109370R.C. 2929.14/consecutive sentences. The trial court engaged in the correct analysis; evidence in the record supports the imposition of consecutive sentences.JonesCuyahoga 1/21/2021 1/21/2021 2021-Ohio-125
State v. White 109652Constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Act; S.B. 201; failure to object to sentence. Because defendant failed to object to his sentence or raise a constitutional challenge to the Reagan Tokes Act at his sentencing hearing, we decline to address his constitutional arguments raised for the first time on appeal.BoyleCuyahoga 1/21/2021 1/21/2021 2021-Ohio-126
Pagano v. Case W. Res. Univ. 108936Civ.R. 56, summary judgment; tenure. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee university regarding the denial of appellant’s application for tenure is reversed. A university has broad discretion to make decisions about such matters that “must be left for evaluation by the professionals, particularly since they often involve inquiry into aspects of arcane scholarship beyond the competence of individual judges.” Gogate v. Ohio State Univ., 42 Ohio App.3d 220, 226, 537 N.E.2d 690 (10th Dist.1987). However, genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the university committed procedural errors that prejudiced the appellant’s application for tenure and promotion. Accordingly, summary judgment was improper.KilbaneCuyahoga 1/14/2021 1/14/2021 2021-Ohio-59
State v. D-Bey 109000Guilty pleas; attempted domestic violence; nonexistent offense; invited error; motion to withdraw guilty pleas; Crim.R. 32.1; manifest injustice; evidentiary hearing; ineffective assistance of counsel; mental health evaluation; R.C. 2945.371(A); referral to mental health docket; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); review of felony sentences; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; excessive sentences; court costs. Defendant’s challenge to his guilty plea to attempted domestic violence on the basis that it was a nonexistent offense was invited error. Defendant did not establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged failure to advise him that he was pleading guilty to a nonexistent offense and that, if he had known this, he would not have pled guilty and would have, instead, insisted upon going to trial. Trial court did not err in failing to order a mental health evaluation before accepting defendant’s guilty pleas where no issue was raised below as to defendant’s competency to enter a guilty plea or as to his sanity at the time he committed the offenses at issue and there is nothing in the record to suggest that defendant exhibited any outward signs of incompetency. Defendant made no showing that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate defendant’s mental health, failing to request a transfer to the mental health docket, failing to explore sanity and blackout defenses or failing to provide mitigating mental health information to the trial court for consideration during sentencing. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas without an evidentiary hearing where defendant submitted no affidavits or any other relevant evidentiary materials in support of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and did not point to any specific facts in the record that could otherwise support his claim of manifest injustice. Trial court complied with its obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when sentencing defendant. An appellate court cannot review a defendant’s sentences to determine whether they are excessive or otherwise not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Trial court order imposing court costs reversed; case remanded for trial court to vacate imposition of court costs.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 1/14/2021 1/14/2021 2021-Ohio-60
Newburgh Hts. v. State 109106H.B. 62; traffic cameras; preliminary injunction; irreparable harm; likelihood of success on the merits; public interest; constitutionality of a statute; home rule amendment. The trial court’s judgment denying the cities’ motions for preliminary injunction was affirmed with respect to the provision of H.B. 62 that stated municipal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to citations from a traffic camera. However, the trial court’s judgment denying the cities’ motions for preliminary injunction was reversed with respect to two provisions of H.B. 62 that (1) reduced the cities’ local government funds and (2) required the cities to pay advance court deposits because these two provisions violate the Home Rule Amendment. BoyleCuyahoga 1/14/2021 1/14/2021 2021-Ohio-61
Wiltz v. Cleveland Clinic 109147, 109483Medical malpractice; pro se plaintiff; dismissal for failure to file affidavit of merit; motion for leave to amend complaint; state of limitations; cognizable event; service by mail; presumption of proper service; motion for relief from judgment. Dismissal of pro se plaintiff's medical malpractice complaint against 20 defendants affirmed. Complaint was filed after the statute of limitations expired, and plaintiff failed to file the affidavit of merit required by Civ.R. 10(D).BlackmonCuyahoga 1/14/2021 1/14/2021 2021-Ohio-62
State v. S.D.K. 109195Violation of protection order; R.C. 2919.27(A)(1); furthermore clause; R.C. 2919.27(B)(3); manifest weight of the evidence; prior conviction as essential element of the crime. The defendant’s conviction for violating a protection order is not against the manifest weight of the evidence despite conflicting witness testimony. The trial court did not err in admitting evidence that the defendant had a prior conviction for violating a protection order. Such evidence was necessary to prove the element of the “furthermore clause” that the defendant had a prior conviction for violating a protection order.BoyleCuyahoga 1/14/2021 1/14/2021 2021-Ohio-63