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

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the full-text search.
Opinion Text Search:    What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:   What is a Source?
Year Decided:   What is Decided?
County:   What is Decided?
Case Number:   What is Case Number?
Author:   What is Decided?
Topics and Issues:   What is Decided?
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
Grundey v. Grundey 14AP-420Trial court erred when it denied appellant's motion for new trial as untimely filed without first determining whether appellant served the motion within 28 days of the entry of judgment. A party in an action for divorce need not invoke the continuing jurisdiction of the trial court in order to obtain review of a motion for new trial filed pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A). A motion for new trial filed after entry of judgment in a divorce action is not subject to the heightened service requirements of Civ.R. 75(J). Judgment reversed and remanded.SadlerFranklin 4/16/2015 4/16/2015 2015-Ohio-1469
Gold v. Burnham 14AP-603Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not plainly err by excluding evidence of the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation's statutory lien from trial. Plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence regarding the statutory lien, and the record transmitted to this court did not indicate that the trial was saturated with evidence of workers' compensation benefit payments.HortonFranklin 4/14/2015 4/14/2015 2015-Ohio-1431
Leonard v. Pilkington 14AP-650"Final Judgment" in favor of the treasurer in a tax foreclosure action is a valid judgment and constitutes a final appealable order where the entry recognizes the priority of the state's lien on the subject real property, sets forth the total amount of the lien, and orders the sale of the property in the event that appellant does not timely exercise her right of redemption. Challenges to the validity of the "Final Judgment" overruled; judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 4/14/2015 4/14/2015 2015-Ohio-1432
Beaver v. Ohio State Racing Comm. 14AP-681The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the Ohio Racing Commission's order that appellant violated Ohio Adm.Code 3769-18-01 and 3769-18-02. Luper SchusterFranklin 4/14/2015 4/14/2015 2015-Ohio-1433
Dillon v. OhioHealth Corp. 13AP-467, 14AP-259In a medical malpractice action, the "same juror rule" does not require the same jurors who find a defendant to be negligent to be the same jurors who determine causation. Believing this judicially created rule to apply to jury interrogatories supporting a verdict in favor of the defendant, the trial court improperly discarded the jury's first verdict. When the trial court did not inform counsel of the first verdict or permit the parties to poll the jury pursuant to Civ. R. 48, the first verdict could not be entered into judgment. A second verdict from the same jury was irreparably tainted, having been rendered following the first verdict and following an off-the-record discussion between the bailiff and the jury at the trial court's direction. The trial court properly determined it could not enter judgment on either verdict. The trial court's decisions vacating the second verdict, not entering judgment on the first verdict and denying directed verdicts are affirmed, and the case is remanded for a new trial in its entirety.BrunnerFranklin 4/9/2015 4/9/2015 2015-Ohio-1389
State v. Mosley 14AP-639Appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.HortonFranklin 4/9/2015 4/9/2015 2015-Ohio-1390
Frambes 137, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision 14AP-785Judgment affirmed. The Franklin County Board of Revision's decision letter did not violate due process requirements. Appellant did not file its notice of appeal with the board within 30 days as required by R.C. 5717.o5. As such, the Court of Common Pleas correctly dismissed appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.HortonFranklin 4/9/2015 4/9/2015 2015-Ohio-1391
Dispatch Printing Co. v. Recovery Ltd. Partnership 14AP-640; 14AP-641; 14AP-642Trial court should have allowed individual to file an application for a claim from hoard of a sunken treasure ship.TyackFranklin 4/7/2015 4/7/2015 2015-Ohio-1368
State ex rel. Escajadillo v. Koch Foods of Cincinnati, L.L.C. 14AP-267The magistrate correctly determined that Escajadillo is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus as there is some evidence in the record to support the commission's denial of Escajadillo's TTD compensation requests for the periods beginning April 5, 2011 and August 22, 2012. Moreover, having found some evidence supporting the finding that Escajadillo abandoned the workforce, we need not address the alternative reason provided by the commission for the denial of TTD compensation beginning August 22, 2012.Luper SchusterFranklin 3/31/2015 3/31/2015 2015-Ohio-1226
State ex rel. Wallace v. Mausser 14AP-274The court grants respondents' motion to dismiss relator's writ of mandamus requesting the court order a new parole hearing. Relator failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Complaint dismissed. DorrianFranklin 3/31/2015 3/31/2015 2015-Ohio-1227
12345678910