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 285 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Ceglia v. Youngstown State Univ. 14AP-864Genuine issue of material fact exists as to employee's age discrimination claim where the employee presented evidence upon which it may be reasonably inferred that he was as qualified, if not more qualified, than the candidate selected for the new position, that many of the proffered reasons for denying him the position were false or insufficient and that the employer made ageist remarks to the employee. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for the employer on the employee's disability discrimination claim where the employee failed to present evidence that his medical conditions were the true reason for denying him the position. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.SadlerFranklin 9/1/2015 9/1/2015 2015-Ohio-2125
Briscoe v. U.S. Restoration & Remodeling, Inc. 14AP-533 & 14AP-543Trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting motion to strike untimely filed memorandum contra motion for summary judgment. Trial court did not err in granting unopposed motion for summary judgment where defendants met their burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Because motion for sanctions demonstrated arguable merit and did not on its face reveal the lack of a triable issue, the trial court erred in denying the motion without either holding a hearing or making factual findings to support its conclusion that sanctions were not appropriate.DorrianFranklin 9/1/2015 9/1/2015 2015-Ohio-3567
State ex rel. Blaine v. Indus. Comm. 14AP-689Industrial Commission was not required to exercise continuing jurisdiction.TyackFranklin 9/1/2015 9/1/2015 2015-Ohio-3568
Fischer v. Kent State Univ. 14AP-789Judgment affirmed. Retired professor asserted claims against university for defamation, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation, and violations of his First Amendment rights, R.C. 149 and 1347.10, in the Court of Claims of Ohio. The court was correct in holding that the university was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's claims of defamation and violations of R.C. 1347.10, and that the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims of breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation, constitutional claims, and violations of R.C. 149.HortonFranklin 9/1/2015 9/1/2015 2015-Ohio-3569
Helton v. Admr., Bur. of Workers' Comp. 14AP-935Because appellant only filed a petition, and not a notice of appeal from the Industrial Commission's order disallowing his workers' compensation claim, the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial court properly granted appellee's motion to dismiss.Luper SchusterFranklin 9/1/2015 9/1/2015 2015-Ohio-3570
Harrington v. Ford 14AP-954The trial court properly applied the frozen coverture method in its division of ex-husband's defined benefit pension account. Thus, the trial court did not improperly modify the original order of division of marital property as set forth in the divorce decree. However, the trial court erred as to its award of missed payments to the ex-wife. Thus, the matter must be remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of readdressing the ex-husband's obligation to fully compensate the ex-wife for the missed payments.Luper SchusterFranklin 9/1/2015 9/1/2015 2015-Ohio-3571
State ex rel. Davenport v. State 14AP-1043Inmate did not comply with R.C. 2969.25, so case is dismissed.TyackFranklin 9/1/2015 9/1/2015 2015-Ohio-3572
State v. Robinson 13AP-563Late application for reopening under App.R. 26(B) is denied. The record demonstrates no ineffective counsel.TyackFranklin 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3486
State ex rel. Amanda Bent Bolt Co. v. Indus. Comm. 14AP-295Mandamus denied; commission did not abuse its discretion in interpreting Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-11(E)(4) and in granting claimant's VSSR application; commission did not abuse its discretion in rejecting employer's unilateral negligence defense to the VSSR violation because this defense only applies when the employer has first complied with the relevant safety requirement and deliberately render an otherwise complying device noncompliant.KlattFranklin 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3487
Columbus v. Zimmerman 14AP-963 & 14AP-964OVI conviction affirmed; defendant's administrative license suspension terminated upon her conviction for OVI, and because defendant challenged the ALS but not her conviction, her challenge to the ALS was moot.KlattFranklin 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3488