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?
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 12 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Jones v. Sharefax Credit Union, Inc. C-210260MOOTNESS – CLASS ACTION – CIV.R. 23: Plaintiff’s rejection of defendant’s offer of “complete relief,” checks that fully satisfied plaintiff’s monetary demands, amounted to a rejection of a settlement offer; therefore, the offer had no operative effect and did not moot plaintiff’s claims. The trial court erred in not conducting a rigorous analysis of the Civ.R. 23 requirements for class-action certification.CrouseHamilton 1/26/2022 1/26/2022 2022-Ohio-176
Linder v. Ohio Dept. of Aging C-210247APPELLATE REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE — MOOTNESS: The court of common pleas did not err by dismissing on mootness grounds an administrative appeal of the Ohio Department of Aging’s (“ODA”) decision denying appellant’s application to become a provider for an ODA administered program where the record demonstrates that ODA certified the appellant as a provider during the pendency of the administrative appeal and that any decision by the lower court on the merits of the appeal could not afford appellant any additional relief.WinklerHamilton 1/26/2022 1/26/2022 2022-Ohio-177
Altman v. Parker C-210177SERVICE OF PROCESS — Civ.R. 4.6 — DUE PROCESS — ABUSE OF DISCRETION — REASONABLY CALCULATED: The trial court did not err when it denied defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment based on an alleged failure of service where the plaintiff complied with Civ.R. 4.6(D) and plaintiff presented circumstantial evidence of receipt; the trial court did not abuse its discretion when, following an evidentiary hearing on remand, it concluded defendant’s evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service; the trial court did not err when it determined that service of process was made in a manner reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the action when plaintiff relied on an address provided by the defendant. [But see DISSENT: Defendant sufficiently rebutted the presumption of proper service where documentary evidence showed that defendant did not live at the address listed in the complaint and that defendant was incarcerated in another state when process was served.]BockHamilton 1/21/2022 1/21/2022 2022-Ohio-142
State ex rel. Rimroth v. Harrison C-210236MOOTNESS – RES JUDICATA : The trial court did not err in sua sponte dismissing the case as moot where, in a prior appeal in the same case, the appellate court had remanded the case to the civil service commission and the civil service commission complied with the appellate court’s mandate upon remand, leaving the parties without an actual controversy capable of judicial redress. Plaintiff-appellant’s procedural-due-process rights were not infringed where he was given notice of the grounds for dismissal and an opportunity to respond. Res judicata prevented plaintiff-appellant from relitigating issues decided in a previous appeal in the same case.CrouseHamilton 1/19/2022 1/19/2022 2022-Ohio-110
State v. Rosemond C-180221COUNSEL – POSTRELEASE CONTROL – SENTENCING: Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of appellate counsel where he failed to demonstrate that he suffered prejudice as a result of trial counsel’s failure to raise the issue of misjoinder under Crim.R. 8; there was no reasonable probability that the result of the appeal would have been different but for counsel’s errors. [But see DISSENT: The misjoinder of the charges resulted in a trial that was unreliable and fundamentally unfair because of counsel’s deficient performance.] Defendant convicted of murder and sentenced to postrelease control as part of his sentence received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel where defendant was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the imposition of postrelease control: the postrelease-control statute does not apply to murder.MyersHamilton 1/19/2022 1/19/2022 2022-Ohio-111
Adams v. Durrani C-200173WAIVER – EVID.R. 403 – EVID.R. 404 – EXPERT WITNESS – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – INFORMED CONSENT – FRADULENT MISREPRESENTATION – BATTERY – REAL PARTY IN INTEREST – R.C. 2307.28 – R.C. 2305.113(C) : In a medical-malpractice case, the medical defendants waived any error in the trial court’s references to defendant-doctor as “Mr.” as opposed to “Dr.” where they did not object to the court’s pretrial order giving the parties notice that it would refer to defendant-doctor as “Mr.” or its statement to that effect to potential jurors during voir dire. The trial court did not improperly refer to other lawsuits filed against defendant-doctor by telling jurors that there had been “some publicity” on the case and instructing jurors not to “Google” the n4ames of the parties involved. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs’ expert witness to testify repeatedly that defendant-doctor had “lied” and committed “fraud” where defendants objected to some, but not all, of the statements and the expert witness’s testimony related to plaintiffs’ claim that defendant-doctor had fraudulently misrepresented the nature of her condition and the necessity of surgery. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs’ radiologist expert witness to testify regarding whether the diagnostic images indicated that surgery was necessary or whether plaintiff gave informed consent; the radiologist, although not a surgeon, was qualified to render an opinion as to whether the diagnostic images indicated that surgery was necessary, and obtaining informed consent from a patient for a procedure is a practice that is standard across all types of medical doctors. The trial court did not err in holding that there was sufficient evidence to submit the issue of a permanent and substantial physical deformity to the jury where the surgery left plaintiff with restricted movement in her neck and permanent physical changes to her spine. Defendants raised their real-party-in-interest defense in their answer to plaintiffs’ complaint, but they took no further affirmative action to prosecute the raised defense, which resulted in waiver of the defense. Defendants are not entitled to a credit (“setoff”) under R.C. 2307.28 against the jury verdict in the amount of the settlement reached between plaintiffs and the settling defendants because defendants were found liable for the intentional tort of battery, and the facts of the case make it impractical to distinguish the injuries caused by the battery from the injuries caused by the unintentional torts. Defendants raised their statute-of-repose defense under R.C. 2305.113(C) in their answer to plaintiffs’ complaint, but failed to raise the matter again pretrial and apply relevant case law to the facts of the case, and therefore, waived their statute-of-repose defense.CrouseHamilton 1/12/2022 1/12/2022 2022-Ohio-60
Johnson v. Cincinnati Metro. Hous. Auth. C-210240R.C. 2744.02—POLITICAL SUBDIVISION IMMUNITY—PHYSICAL DEFECT—APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL—APP.R. 16(B)—APP.R. 18(C): The trial court did not err in denying summary judgment on the issue of immunity of a political subdivision from a negligence claim where genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether a loose rubber mat on a stair constituted a physical defect under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4). Where the plaintiff-appellee fails to present any argument in response to arguments raised on appeal by defendant-appellant political subdivision in two assignments of error concerning immunity of a political subdivision from violations of the Landlord-Tenant Act, the appellant’s brief reasonably sustains reversal of the trial court’s decision on those claims when the Ohio Supreme Court has established that claims for violations of the Landlord-Tenant Act cannot proceed under R.C. 2744.02(B)(5).ZayasHamilton 1/7/2022 1/7/2022 2022-Ohio-26
Fairless v. Acuity C-210165CONTRACTS—INSURANCE—DUTY TO DEFEND—ATTORNEY FEES: The trial court did not err in determining that defendant insurer had a duty to defend the underlying action where the claims in the underlying complaint were arguably within the policy coverage. The trial court did not err in declining to award plaintiffs attorney fees where the suit was between the insurer and the insured and no determination had been made that the insurer acted in bad faith in refusing to defend the insured in the underlying action.ZayasHamilton 1/5/2022 1/5/2022 2022-Ohio-10
Roell v. Huddleston C-210168R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(B)—IMMUNITY: The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees where, based on the evidence in the record, reasonable minds could not conclude that the officers’ actions in subduing the decedent amounted to recklessness.ZayasHamilton 1/5/2022 1/5/2022 2022-Ohio-11
State v. Smith C-210267POSTCONVICTION — R.C. 2953.23(A) — SUCCESSIVE PETITIONS: The common pleas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s successive petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23(A), because defendant’s claims failed to satisfy the statutory exceptions for successive petitions under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), where the claims were based on the charging document and not facts that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from discovering.BockHamilton 1/5/2022 1/5/2022 2022-Ohio-12
Hill v. Ferguson C-210278CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER — Civ.R. 65.1(G)(1) —PROCEDURE/RULES — OBJECTION — JURISDICTION — APPELLATE REVIEW — WAIVER: The trial court’s denial or adoption of the magistrate’s decision to issue a civil protection order is a “final, appealable order” under Civ.R. 65.1(G) and R.C. 2505.02; therefore rendering Civ.R. 65.1(G)’s requirement to file written objections is nonjurisdicitonal for purposes of appellate review. Respondent’s failure to comply with Civ.R. 65.1(G)’s requirement to file written objections to the trial court’s adoption of a domestic violence civil protection order waives any challenge to the trial court’s adoption of the domestic violence civil protection order.BockHamilton 1/5/2022 1/5/2022 2022-Ohio-13
In re K.S. C-210479CHILDREN – CUSTODY – R.C. 5103.20: The juvenile court did not err in awarding permanent custody of the child to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services where clear and convincing evidence supported the court’s decision. Pursuant to the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children, codified in R.C. 5103.20, where the receiving state does not approve the placement, the child shall not be placed. Where the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services did not approve mother’s home for placement, the Ohio juvenile court could not place the child with mother in her Kentucky home.CrouseHamilton 1/5/2022 1/5/2022 2022-Ohio-14