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 96 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
CyrusOne, L.L.C. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. C-200156, C-200162INSURANCE — DAMAGES: In an insurance-coverage dispute under a crime-protection policy, the trial court’s award in favor of the plaintiff-insured was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where plaintiff-insured brought a claim to recover its loss within the contractual period and the plaintiff-insured’s expert in forensic accounting opined (1) that plaintiff-insured’s dishonest employee received $5.6 million in kickbacks from vendors; (2) that the vendors transferred the cost of the kickbacks to plaintiff-insured through “purposeful inflation” of invoices and bids; and (3) that this “purposeful inflation” of at least $5.6 million was a financial loss to the plaintiff-insured. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-insurer on plaintiff-insured’s claim of bad faith where defendant-insurer had a reasonable justification for denying coverage: plaintiff-insured had failed to submit the necessary proof required to establish a loss under the insurance policy. The trial court did not err by entering summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-insured on defendant-insurer’s affirmative defense of failure to cooperate: plaintiff-insured had not materially prejudiced defendant-insurer’s investigation by failing to reveal that it had secretly recorded dishonest-employee’s telephone conversations where the recordings were difficult to understand and plaintiff-insured had taken no action against employee after reviewing the recordings.BockHamilton 6/11/2021 6/11/2021 2021-Ohio-1971
Yeager v. U.S. Bank C-200262R.C. 5808.13(A) – Civ.R. 12(B)(6) – TRUSTS: The trial court erred in granting defendant trustee’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs trust beneficiaries’ claims for an accounting and breach of fiduciary duty where (1) R.C. 5808.13(A) provides a duty on the part of the trustee to promptly respond to a beneficiary’s request for information, unless unreasonable under the circumstances, and (2) the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims are based on an alleged embezzlement from the trust and the information concerning the alleged embezzlement is in the hands of the defendant.The trial court did not err in granting defendant trustee’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs trust beneficiaries’ claims for conversion and civil theft where the complaint alleged that the trustee “discovered” that an agent of the trustee had committed an embezzlement from the trust; however, the dismissal of the conversion and civil-theft claims for failure to state a claim should have been without prejudice.ZayasHamilton 6/11/2021 6/11/2021 2021-Ohio-1972
In re T.S. C-200267JUVENILE – BINDOVER – PROBABLE CAUSE: Where the state presented evidence at the discretionary-bindover hearing that the juvenile admitted he fired a gun at people and police recovered the gun and found it to be operable, the state met its burden to establish probable cause that the juvenile engaged in conduct that would have constituted felonious assault and accompanying firearm specifications if he had been an adult, and therefore, the juvenile court erred by finding no probable cause to believe that the juvenile had committed the charged acts.MyersHamilton 6/4/2021 6/4/2021 2021-Ohio-1889
In re L.Z. C-210127CHILDREN – CUSTODY – PARENTAL TERMINATION: The juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody of the child to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services where clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that permanent custody was in the best interest of the child.ZayasHamilton 6/2/2021 6/2/2021 2021-Ohio-1872
In re R.V. C-200170CHILDREN - CUSTODY: The trial court erred in finding that father was not a suitable parent where the evidence was insufficient to show that an award of custody to him would be detrimental to the child.WinklerHamilton 5/28/2021 5/28/2021 2021-Ohio-1830
In re D.R. C-190594CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – DUE PROCESS – SEX OFFENSES – JUVENILES – R.C. 2152.84: R.C. 2152.84, which provides for a mandatory completion-of-disposition hearing for a juvenile-offender registrant at which the juvenile court must review the effectiveness of the disposition and of any treatment provided the juvenile to determine whether his prior classification as a juvenile-offender registrant should be continued or modified, is unconstitutional as applied to a mandatory juvenile-offender registrant classified at disposition as a Tier I offender, the lowest tier, because the completion-of-disposition hearing is meaningless where the juvenile court could do nothing but continue the juvenile’s classification, and therefore, the juvenile was not given an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, and because the elimination of the juvenile judge’s discretion in determining whether the juvenile had been rehabilitated offended the due-process requirement of fundamental fairness.CrouseHamilton 5/26/2021 5/26/2021 2021-Ohio-1797
Cowan v. Ohio Dept. of Jobs & Family Servs. C-200025JURISDICTION – STANDING – MEDICAID: The trial court erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction where the case was brought in the name of the Medicaid applicant and the applicant’s authorized representative was never a party to the case. The trial court correctly affirmed appellant’s Medicaid denial because appellant had the legal authority to sell her property, thus causing her countable resources to exceed Medicaid’s resource limit.BergeronHamilton 5/26/2021 5/26/2021 2021-Ohio-1798
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Higbee Lancoms, L.P. C-200247CONTRACTS – COMMERCIAL LEASE – REAL PROPERTY/LANDLORD AND TENANT – EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL – HOLDOVER TENANCY: The parties did not create a new oral contract or extend the lease when the parties engaged in lengthy negotiations, but failed to agree to or sign a final written agreement; therefore, the terms of the agreement were never definite and there was no meeting of the minds. The record showed that defendant was a year-to-year holdover tenant, and, therefore, defendant was obligated to meet all of the terms of the lease for the remainder of the holdover term. Equitable estoppel does not apply. Where no factual misrepresentations were made in the parties’ negotiations to extend defendant’s lease, there was no showing of fraud.BockHamilton 5/26/2021 5/26/2021 2021-Ohio-1799
Griffith v. MacAllister Rental, L.L.C. C-200311CHOICE-OF-LAW – WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – INDEMNITY: The trial court did not err in applying Ohio law because the place of performance and the location of the item were in Ohio. The indemnity agreement between the parties was not sufficiently particularized to overcome the employer’s workers’ compensation immunity.BergeronHamilton 5/26/2021 5/26/2021 2021-Ohio-1800
Quincy Communication v. Patrick C-200224CONTRACTS – BREACH OF CONTRACT – LIQUIDATED DAMAGES – DAMAGES – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT: Where a liquidated-damages clause in the parties’ contract failed to specify in clear and unambiguous terms the amount of damages that would be imposed if defendant breached the contract, the trial court did not err in determining that the liquidated-damages clause was unenforceable. Where plaintiff failed to establish that it incurred damages resulting from defendant’s breach of contract, the trial court’s judgment in favor of defendant on the breach-of-contract claim was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.MyersHamilton 5/21/2021 5/21/2021 2021-Ohio-1736
12345678910