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
Hope Academy v. White Hat Mgt., L.L.C. 20AP-475The trial court did not err when it held the Schools did not waive their real party in interest defense. However, the trial court erred when it held that ODE was not the real party in interest to ODE's claims to recover federal grant funds. Pursuant to Civ.R. 17(A) a real party in interest includes "a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another***", and the Assurances made by the Schools is a contract with ODE which has been made for the benefit of another – i.e., the USDOE. Furthermore, it was error on the part of the trial court to conclude that ODE abandoned the portion of its Trust claim which was premised on state operating funds. Judgment reversed and remanded.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/25/2022 1/25/2022 2022-Ohio-178
State ex rel. Byk v. Indus. Comm. 15AP-992The magistrate did not err in the conclusion that the deceased injured worker and/or his estate lacked standing to bring the mandamus action as the workers’ compensation claim had abated upon the injured worker’s death, and the surviving spouse of the deceased injured worker cannot pursue the mandamus action on the deceased injured worker’s behalf but has a remedy in her ongoing R.C. 4123.60 proceedings. Petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. Luper SchusterFranklin 1/20/2022 1/20/2022 2022-Ohio-136
State ex rel. Cleveland v. Indus. Comm. 19AP-493The magistrate's decision recommending this court deny the relator's request for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to vacate the Industrial Commission's grant of permanent total disability compensation to relator's employee is adopted in its entirety. Relator failed to file an objection to the magistrate's decision, and our review, under Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c), reveals no error of law or other evident defect in the decision.MentelFranklin 1/20/2022 1/20/2022 2022-Ohio-137
Columbus v. Gunthorp 21AP-313Considering all of the evidence together, the trial court did not clearly lose its way in concluding appellant was required to yield to Hashim's right-of-way when he was attempting to turn left across Hashim's lane of travel, and appellant's conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, the trial court did not err in in finding appellant guilty of the traffic offense of failure to yield when turning left. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/20/2022 1/20/2022 2022-Ohio-138
State v. D.M. 21AP-118Trial court decision denying defendant's motion to correct partially void sentence affirmed. Under State v. Henderson, defendant's sentence was voidable rather than void.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/18/2022 1/18/2022 2022-Ohio-108
Gerst v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 21AP-65The court of common pleas did not abuse its discretion in affirming the SPBR order denying appellant’s request for reclassification because SPBR's decision to classify appellant's job duties as HCM Senior Analyst and not as a HCM Manager is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and in accordance with the law. Judgment affirmed. JamisonFranklin 1/13/2022 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-86
State v. Justice 21AP-253Defendant’s appeal of trial court judgment determining she was incompetent to stand trial affirmed. Challenge to determination of incompetency overruled where appellant failed to ensure a transcript was prepared and filed for review and for that reason could demonstrate no irregularity in the trial court proceedings. Appellate court lacked jurisdiction to determine challenges relating to nonfinal judgments and orders, and appellate court lacked jurisdiction to challenge orders from different trial-level courts from which no appeal had been taken.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/13/2022 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-87
State ex rel. Battin v. Lynch 21AP-321As respondent had already issued a ruling on relator’s motion for judicial release, relator’s requested writ of procedendo is moot. We agree with the magistrate’s decision to grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss relator’s complaint for a writ of procedendo.Luper SchusterFranklin 1/11/2022 1/11/2022 2022-Ohio-61
Foy v. Ohio Atty. Gen. 21AP-420The trial court did not err in granting the state's motion to dismiss Foy's complaint seeking a declaration that he is wrongfully imprisoned individual. Luper SchusterFranklin 1/11/2022 1/11/2022 2022-Ohio-62
State ex rel. Hatfield v. French 20AP-97Mandamus denied; respondent demonstrated excusable neglect for its untimely motion to dismiss and therefore the motion could be considered. Relator had adequate remedy at law to contest the denial of his request for the opening and closing arguments from his criminal trial thereby precluding relief in mandamus; relator's purported public records request did not comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(8).KlattFranklin 1/6/2022 1/6/2022 2022-Ohio-23
Ashley v. Kevin O'Brien & Assocs. Co., L.P.A. 20AP-354 & 20AP-393The trial court did not patently ad unambiguously lack jurisdiction to proceed on the cause before it involving a motion for sanctions made after the underlying action had been dismissed. And there is no absolute rule against permitting limited discovery as to such a motion: discovery may proceed within narrow bounds (only) in certain extraordinary circumstances. Writs of prohibition are not designed to correct trial court abuse of discretion; here, where petitioners may seek a remedy in the ordinary course of law, the petition is dismissed. The separate appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the absence of a final. appealable order.NelsonFranklin 1/6/2022 1/6/2022 2022-Ohio-24
Cyr v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio 21AP-273The trial court did not err in dismissing appellant's R.C. 119.12 appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal with both the Board and the trial court is fatal to her administrative appeal, including the issue of whether or not she was served with the initial notice of opportunity for hearing. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/6/2022 1/6/2022 2022-Ohio-25