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?
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.?
Citation:
   What is Citation?
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.
This search returned 526 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. McInnes 115053Burden of proof; affirmative defense; qualified immunity; police; excessive force; expert testimony; lay opinion testimony; sufficiency; manifest weight; Graham v. Connor; confrontation; Garrity statements; Garrity v. New Jersey; grand-jury transcript; sentencing. Trial court properly placed burden of proving affirmative defense of reasonableness on the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. Trial court properly admitted lay opinion testimony from three police officers where the opinion testimony was based on the rational perception of the witnesses and the testimony was helpful in understanding of the use of force under the circumstances. Defendant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and by the manifest weight of the evidence where the witnesses’ testimony regarding the defendant’s use of excessive force was corroborated by body-camera and other video evidence. Defendant’s right of confrontation was not violated by the absence of one of the victims from trial because no statements by the absent witness were admitted into evidence and all other witnesses were subject to cross-examination. Even though defendant’s supervisor asked him to complete a use-of-force report, there were no Garrity violations because there was no evidence that the defendant was coerced into completing the report. Trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for grand-jury transcripts was not an abuse of discretion where the defendant failed to establish a particularized need for the transcripts. Defendant’s sentence was not contrary to law where the trial court considered applicable sentencing statutes and his sentence was within the statutory range of penalties for his convictions. Defendant’s sentence was also supported by the record.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 9/10/2026 9/10/2026 2026-Ohio-3534
Rocky River v. Abdul-Kareem 115685Magistrate’s decision; objections; objections to the magistrate’s decision; Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii); Crim.R. 19(D)(1)(a); Crim.R. 19(C)(1)(h); Crim.R. 19(D)(4)(c); Crim.R. 19(D)(4)(d). Vacated and remanded. Appellant’s conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial court so that the magistrate can prepare and file a decision that complies with Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii) and the parties may then have the opportunity to file objections to the magistrate’s decision.CalabreseCuyahoga 9/10/2026 9/10/2026 2026-Ohio-3535
State v. K.N. 115738; 115740; 115783; 115917Motion to seal the record; motion for expungement; pending criminal proceeding; community control sanctions; federal supervision; R.C. 2953.32(D)(1)(b); R.C. 2953.33(B)(2)(b). Being under supervision, such as community control sanctions, is not a pending criminal proceeding for the purpose of expungement and record-sealing statutes.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 9/10/2026 9/10/2026 2026-Ohio-3536
State v. Thompson 115837Postconviction DNA testing; R.C. 2953.74; outcome determinative; exclusion result; overwhelming evidence; shell casings. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his application for postconviction DNA testing. Applying the requisite presumption that an exclusion result would be obtained, trial court reasonably determined that a DNA test excluding appellant as a contributor on the shell casings would not be outcome determinative because it would only demonstrate that appellant did not handle the shell casings; the overwhelming eyewitness testimony supported that appellant was the shooter.KeoughCuyahoga 9/10/2026 9/10/2026 2026-Ohio-3537
Gott v. Baker Concrete Constr., Inc. 115899Summary judgment; retaliation; R.C. 4112.02(I). The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees because the appellant failed to produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that he suffered an adverse employment action and, thus, he could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation under R.C. 4112.02(I).Laster MaysCuyahoga 9/10/2026 9/10/2026 2026-Ohio-3538
12345678910...>>