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 269 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Magda v. Ohio Elections Comm. 14AP-929Court of Common Pleas did not abuse its discretion in affirming the Ohio Election Commission's order that appellants had violated R.C. 3517.21(B)(1) , prohibiting in campaign materials, with intent to affect the outcome of such campaign, using the title of an office not currently held by a candidate in a manner that implies that the candidate does currently hold that office, or use of the term "re-elect" when the candidate has never been elected at a primary, general, or special election to the office for which he or she is a candidate. However, the statute is an impermissible restriction on political speech protected by the First Amendment and unconstitutional on its face. Reversed and remanded for imposing an injunction against the statute's enforcement.BrunnerFranklin 7/21/2016 7/21/2016 2016-Ohio-5043
LGR Realty, Inc. v. Frank & London Ins. Agency 15AP-1072The statute of limitations for a claim against an insurance agent r agency for negligent failure to procure appropriate coverage for a client does not begin to run until the insured suffers a loss that should have been covered by the policy placed by the agent.TyackFranklin 7/21/2016 7/21/2016 2016-Ohio-5044
State v. Peirano 16AP-96Trial court was correct to dismiss burglary charge when a woman entered her own house. She did not enter the land or premises of another.TyackFranklin 7/21/2016 7/21/2016 2016-Ohio-5045
M.S.K. v. C.K. 16AP-97The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the child's parents to be unsuitable and awarding legal custody of child to the paternal grandparents. The father conceded unsuitability and the trial court reasonably concluded that the mother was unable to consistently maintain a safe and sanitary home for the young child. Judgment affirmed.Luper SchusterFranklin 7/21/2016 7/21/2016 2016-Ohio-5046
Q.W. v. A.T. 15AP-1099The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Ohio was an inconvenient forum and that Minnesota was a more convenient forum to determine a child custody matter where the record shows that the trial court considered all the relevant factors under R.C. 3127.21(B).SadlerFranklin 7/19/2016 7/19/2016 2016-Ohio-5019
State v. Thip 15AP-403The trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress based on the totality of the circumstances and we affirmed.BrownFranklin 7/14/2016 7/15/2016 2016-Ohio-4970
State ex rel. Andrasi v. Indus. Comm. 15AP-531The magistrate correctly determined that the Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying relator's application for temporary total disability compensation where the record contained some evidence that relator had voluntarily abandoned the workforce. Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's decision, the decision of the magistrate is adopted by the court as its own. Objections overruled; writ of mandamus denied.BrunnerFranklin 7/14/2016 7/15/2016 2016-Ohio-4971
Cahill v. Owens 15AP-925Where a trial court held against a plaintiff pursuing an unjust enrichment claim because the plaintiff failed to prove he had exercised "ordinary diligence," it erred in the context of the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.BrunnerFranklin 7/14/2016 7/15/2016 2016-Ohio-4972
Ta v. Chaudhry 15AP-867Both landlord and leaser appealed the judgment of the trial court. The trial court conducted a trial but found that the remodeling agreement for the leased space does not contain definite and certain terms such that it is a legally enforceable contract. We agree, when reasonable interpreted in light of all the circumstances, we are not able to determine what the terms of the agreement are. To enforce the agreement as written, in effect forces the court to make a contract for the parties. Judgment affirmed.TyackFranklin 7/12/2016 7/13/2016 2016-Ohio-4944
State v. Waddy 15AP-397The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's Criminal Rule 33(B) motion without a hearing. Judgment affirmed.PowellFranklin 7/11/2016 7/11/2016 2016-Ohio-4911
12345678910...>>