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 130 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Rankin v. Rankin 20AP-223 & 20AP-304Trial court did not err in determining that the relocation related provisions of a shared parenting plan remained in a child's best interest and, therefore, refusing to modify a shared parenting plan pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) to prohibit the mother and child from moving to a previously agreed-to school district. Father did not demonstrate that the trial court erred in granting a partial award of attorney fees relating to his post-judgment filings. Judgments affirmed.BroganFranklin 6/10/2021 6/10/2021 2021-Ohio-1967
State v. Smith 19AP-170The jury's verdict finding appellant guilty of aggravated robbery and robbery was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel by not objecting to the court's calculation of peremptory challenges and by not presenting the testimony of one of appellant's co-workers who he considered an alibi or the testimony of appellant's accomplice. The trial court did not err in determining that appellant's speedy trial rights were not violated. Appellant's assignments of error are overruled. Judgment affirmed.DorrianFranklin 6/8/2021 6/8/2021 2021-Ohio-1936
State ex rel. DeMarco v. Indus. Comm. 19AP-227The Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in determining that relator's employer did not violate a specific safety requirement set forth in Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-03(J)(1). The magistrate erred in finding the record does not contain some evidence supporting the Industrial Commission's denial of relator's VSSR award application. Objections sustained; writ denied.Luper SchusterFranklin 6/8/2021 6/8/2021 2021-Ohio-1937
State ex rel. Kelly Servs., Inc. v. McGrue 19AP-362Industrial commission properly exercised jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in denying staff hearing officer's order and entering a new order concluding that temporary total disability payments to respondent should continue. The commission's order was authorized by law and supported by evidence. Magistrate's decision approved and adopted, writ of mandamus denied.Beatty BluntFranklin 6/8/2021 6/8/2021 2021-Ohio-1938
State ex rel. Newark Group, Inc. v. Admin., Bur. of Workers' Comp. 19AP-544For purposes of R.C. 4123.512(H), a VSSR award is "compensation" as that term is used in this statute. Following a determination that a VSSR award has been erroneously paid by an employer, R.C. 4123.512(H) authorizes the reimbursement of that award from the surplus fund.KlattFranklin 6/8/2021 6/8/2021 2021-Ohio-1939
State ex rel. Northern v. Indus. Comm. 20AP-63The magistrate did not err in concluding the commission did not abuse its discretion in exercising its continuing jurisdiction to deny claimants’ death application on the basis of new and changed circumstances. Writ of mandamus denied. Luper SchusterFranklin 6/8/2021 6/8/2021 2021-Ohio-1940
Sutherland v. Gaylor 20AP-257Trial court erred by limiting cross-appellant's award of damages for appellant's breach of the non-compete provision in the independent contractor agreement to the additional salary cross-appellant would have earned from his limited liability company if appellant had not beached the agreement. Because cross-appellant was the contracting party, not his company, cross-appellant was the only party with standing to prosecute a claim against appellant, and he was entitled to recover all damages flowing naturally from the breach. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it failed to award damages to cross-appellant representing the full amount of profit lost. Sufficient evidence was presented by cross-appellant to support an award of damages representing that estimated gross profit lost over the two-year duration of the non-compete provision because cross-appellant's business was well-established, the financial records presented by cross-appellant permitted a reasonably reliable estimate of lost profit, and an award equal to two-years of estimated lost profit was necessary to place cross-appellant in the same position he would have occupied had appellant not breached the agreement. Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part.SadlerFranklin 6/8/2021 6/8/2021 2021-Ohio-1941
State ex rel. Prater v. Indus. Comm. 19AP-555The magistrate's decision recommending denial of relator's complaint for a writ of mandamus seeking an award of previously denied permanently total disability compensation is adopted in its entirety. Relator filed no objections and our review, under Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c), reveals no error of law or other evident defect in the magistrate's decision.MentelFranklin 6/3/2021 6/3/2021 2021-Ohio-1890
Lane v. U.S. Bank, N.A. 20AP-335The trial court did not err in holding a Civ.R. 55 evidentiary hearing and denying appellant's default judgment motions. Judgment affirmed.Luper SchusterFranklin 6/3/2021 6/3/2021 2021-Ohio-1891
State ex rel. Hamilton v. Indus. Comm. 19AP-510The Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion when it denied relator's application for TTD benefits because the resignation form relator executed on March 14, 2017, in connection with her grievance, supported the commission's finding that relator voluntarily abandoned her employment effective December 14, 2016. Relator's objections overruled; writ denied.SadlerFranklin 5/27/2021 5/27/2021 2021-Ohio-1824