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 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:   What is Year Decided?
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 307 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re Application for the Sealing of the Records of A.H. 15AP-555Because appellee was not an eligible offender under R.C. 2953.31 and 2953.32, trial court erred in granting appellee's application to seal records of convictions.BrownFranklin 8/25/2016 8/25/2016 2016-Ohio-5530
In re Estate of Garza 15AP-1031Trial court abused its discretion by granting sanctions under Civ.R. 11 for attorney fees associated with appeal from the court of appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio based on the trial court's finding that the appeal was frivolous. The Supreme Court's Rules of Practice provide a method for parties to seek a determination from the Supreme Court that an appeal is frivolous and an award of sanctions.DorrianFranklin 8/25/2016 8/25/2016 2016-Ohio-5531
Scott v. Nameth 16AP-64Following an action for qualified private nuisance, the trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate's decision finding frivolous conduct under R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(a)(ii) and (iii) where the plaintiffs did not allege physical discomfort. The trial court acted within its discretion in ordering a hearing on the motion for attorney fees and in ultimately awarding no attorney fees to the defendants due to the particular history of conduct between the parties. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 8/25/2016 8/25/2016 2016-Ohio-5532
State v. Jenkins 16AP-105Trial court did not err when it construed appellant's "motion to vacate a void sentence and set aside unconstitutional plea" as a petition for postconviction relief and dismissing the petition as untimely filed. Additionally, res judicata barred appellant from raising grounds for relief that were or might have been raised in a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence or in his prior motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 8/25/2016 8/25/2016 2016-Ohio-5533
State v. Armengau 16AP-418Prisoner's action seeking review of an order entered by the common pleas court that denied his public records request dismissed for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A).KlattFranklin 8/25/2016 8/25/2016 2016-Ohio-5534
Cairelli v. Brunner 15 AP 854Right of First Refusal; Statute of FraudsWiseFranklin 8/25/2016 8/25/2016 2016-Ohio-5535
State v. Minor 15AP-919Defendant's convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence or insufficiently supported by the evidence. It was not an abuse of discretion to refuse to grant a continuance during trial to allow defense counsel to interview a potential witness despite the fact that the witness had previously been unavailable. Judgment affirmed.BrunnerFranklin 8/23/2016 8/23/2016 2016-Ohio-5492
State v. Clark 15AP-926Where the defendant did not touch or assault the victim and where there was no evidence introduced at trial that the defendant was physically present for or knew about the cavity searches of the victim, the evidence was insufficient to convict the defendant of rape, even as a complicitor. Judgment reversed in part and remanded.BrunnerFranklin 8/23/2016 8/23/2016 2016-Ohio-5493
State v. Reed 15AP-952Defendant's convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence or insufficiently supported by the evidence. However, despite the fact that the judgment entry contained the appropriate findings, because the trial court did not make the required findings on consecutive sentences at the sentencing hearing, the matter must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing, at which, in considering whether consecutive sentences are appropriate, the trial court must make all of the required findings on the record.BrunnerFranklin 8/23/2016 8/23/2016 2016-Ohio-5494
In re Application for Sealing of Records of A.J. 15AP-974Appellee was not charged with "two or more offenses" under the rationale of State v. Klembis, 146 Ohio St.3d 84, 2016-Ohio-1092,  17, and therefore R.C. 2953.61 and State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81, 2013-Ohio-4010, did not apply to bar the trial court from sealing the record of his felony telecommunications harassment dismissal where his misdemeanor telecommunications harassment conviction could not be sealed. Partial sealing issues as discussed in State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498, 2009-Ohio-5590,  20-21, did not otherwise preclude sealing the record of the dismissed case. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 8/23/2016 8/23/2016 2016-Ohio-5495
12345678910...>>