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 27 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. McFarland 23 CO 0016guilty plea to promoting prostitution; properly classified as Tier I sex offender under R.C. 2950.01(E)(1)(a); R.C. 2950.01(B)(2) exceptions do not apply; nunc pro tunc order to correct clerical error mistake with reporting requirementHanniColumbiana 2/22/2024 2/22/2024 2024-Ohio-669
State v. Fulton 23 MA 0043Sufficiency or the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; drug possession, R.C. 2925.11; circumstantial evidence; constructive possessionHanniMahoning 2/22/2024 2/22/2024 2024-Ohio-671
State v. Gilreath 23 NO 0509failure to merge offenses was not plain error.RobbNoble 2/21/2024 2/22/2024 2024-Ohio-657
State v. Ellison 23 MA 0019CRIMINAL LAW – kidnapping; abduction; robbery; assault; trial by jury; sentenced to five years (minimum) to seven and one-half years (maximum) in prison; sufficiency; the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion; manifest weight; the jury chose to believe the State’s witnesses; no cumulative error; Appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law; judgment affirmed.KlattMahoning 2/21/2024 2/22/2024 2024-Ohio-653
Stare v. Grange Indemnity Ins. Co. 23 MA 0027PREJUDGMENT INTEREST – uninsured motorist policy; automobile accident; abuse of discretion standard of review; the trial court did not err in determining that the date of accrual for prejudgment interest should be the date Appellants refiled their complaint in Mahoning County; trial courts have discretion in determining a reasonable date of accrual; Appellants’ position that the date of accrual for an award of prejudgment interest is always the date of the accident is both misplaced and unfounded under Ohio law; judgment affirmed.KlattMahoning 2/21/2024 2/22/2024 2024-Ohio-654
State v. Ellison 23 MA 0035CRIMINAL LAW – kidnapping; abduction; robbery; assault; trial by jury; sentenced to three years (minimum) to four and one-half years (maximum) in prison; sufficiency; the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion; manifest weight; the jury chose to believe the State’s witnesses; no cumulative error; judgments affirmed.KlattMahoning 2/21/2024 2/22/2024 2024-Ohio-655
Murray v. Auto Owners Ins. 23 MA 0048CIVIL – summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; insurance contract; motion to vacate; Civ.R. 60(B); reconsideration; the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to vacate since the motion was an improper substitute for an appeal of a final order; Appellant failed to show he had a meritorious defense; Appellant did not set forth which Civ.R. 60(B) ground for relief he was claiming to be entitled; judgment affirmed.KlattMahoning 2/21/2024 2/22/2024 2024-Ohio-656
Brown v. Kozak 23 MA 0022jury verdict in favor of defendant-insurance company on uninsured motorist claim; inconsistent jury interrogatories as to proximate cause; jurors failed to sign interrogatories; errors rose to level of plain errorHanniMahoning 2/21/2024 2/22/2024 2024-Ohio-670
State v. Chipps 23 MA 0053Consecutive sentences, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); findings by trial court; standard of review for consecutive sentence findings; State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851HanniMahoning 2/21/2024 2/22/2024 2024-Ohio-672
State v. Bruce 23 BE 0009App.R. 26(B)(5); applicant bears burden of establishing a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; motion to certify a conflict; App.R. 25; factually distinct; rule of law.Per CuriamBelmont 2/21/2024 2/22/2024 2024-Ohio-651
Yarosz v. Montgomery 23 JE 0006CIVIL – domestic relations; divorce; termination of marriage; marital residence; marital property versus separate property; R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)-(6), (B), (D), and (H); Appellee met his tracing burden and Appellant failed to produce any evidence challenging that traceability; the record establishes and the trial court properly found that Appellant failed to demonstrate any separate property interest; the trial court awarded Appellee the full amount of his premarital and separate interest in the marital residence; the trial court’s decision does not go against the manifest weight of the evidence; judgment affirmed.KlattJefferson 2/20/2024 2/22/2024 2024-Ohio-652
Quest Wellness Ohio, L.L.C. v. Samuels 23 MA 0013motion to certify conflict; App.R. 25; application for reconsideration; App.R. 26(A); no certifiable conflictPer CuriamMahoning 2/14/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-556
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Smith 22 MA 0111CIVIL – Second motion to certify conflict, which constitutes ninth post-judgment motion/application challenging merits opinion, is overruled as pro se Appellants have previously exhausted their rights under App.R. 25 and 26.Per CuriamMahoning 2/13/2024 2/14/2024 2024-Ohio-546
State v. Derrick 23 MA 0054CRIMINAL – The trial court’s finding with respect to the imposition of consecutive sentence need not immediately follow the imposition of sentence. The trial court’s use of conditional language in its findings does not invalidate the consecutive sentences.KlattMahoning 2/13/2024 2/14/2024 2024-Ohio-548
State v. Earich 23 CO 0015guilty plea to felonious assault; counsel not ineffective; evidence did not support self-defense instruction; court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) in advising Appellant of non-constitutional rightsHanniColumbiana 2/8/2024 2/9/2024 2024-Ohio-477
In re Adoption of B.R.R. 23 CO 0043stepfather adoption; out of state parent; statements of intent to visit without corresponding action; de minimis contact; exceptions; R.C. 3107.07; visitation order; supervised visit; no-contact order.RobbColumbiana 2/8/2024 2/9/2024 2024-Ohio-478
In re Adoption of A.R.A. 23 CA 0971adoption by maternal grandmother; best interest of the child; R.C. 3107.161(B)(C); no abuse of discretionHanniCarroll 2/6/2024 2/7/2024 2024-Ohio-435
Givens v. Hanson 23 BE 0013CIVIL – Trial court’s failure to consolidate cases does not constitute an abuse of discretion where no motion to consolidate is filed and there is no evidence in the record demonstrating consolidation was warranted pursuant to Civ.R 42. A reviewing court must presume the validity of the lower court proceedings where no transcript of the proceedings in made a part of the record, and the appellant does not avail herself of the alternatives in App.R. 9(C) and (D).KlattBelmont 2/6/2024 2/6/2024 2024-Ohio-416
State v. Daviduk 22 MA 0058Pretrial Motion to withdraw guilty plea; Post-judgment motion to withdraw guilty plea; Crim. R. 32.1; Abuse of Discretion; Competency Hearing, R.C. 2945.37; Waiver of Competency Hearing; Stipulation to Competency Evaluation Report; Reagan Tokes Law; R.C. 2967; Constitutionality; State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535.HanniMahoning 2/6/2024 2/6/2024 2024-Ohio-411
State v. McMannis 22 MA 0049CRIMINAL LAW – manslaughter; grand theft of a motor vehicle; guilty plea; consecutively sentenced to a total indefinite prison term of 12 years (minimum) to 16 and one-half years (maximum); indefinite sentencing under the Reagan Tokes Law is constitutional; the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12, and 2929.13, and its imposition of consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b)-(c) is supported by the record; judgment affirmed.KlattMahoning 2/6/2024 2/6/2024 2024-Ohio-415
State v. Simmons 22 JE 0022RECONSIDERATION – App.R. 26(A); second pro se application; the record establishes this court neither made an obvious error nor misstated the record regarding a gun being used in Appellant’s altercation with the victim; upon consideration of his first application, Appellant did not demonstrate any obvious errors or raise any issues that were not adequately addressed in our previous opinion; this court was not persuaded that we erred as a matter of law and we denied his first pro se application for reconsideration; App.R. 26(A) does not provide for second or successive reconsiderations; accordingly, Appellant’s second pro se application for reconsideration is denied.Per CuriamJefferson 2/6/2024 2/7/2024 2024-Ohio-436
State v. Griffin 22 MA 0126App.R. 26; application for reconsideration; timeliness; App.R. 30; no obvious error; fully considered; res judicataPer CuriamMahoning 2/5/2024 2/6/2024 2024-Ohio-412
State v. Harper 23 CO 0023operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs; denial of continuance not abuse of discretion; trial counsel was not ineffective; third-degree felony OVI due to prior OVI convictionHanniColumbiana 2/5/2024 2/6/2024 2024-Ohio-413
Bishop v. Cross Creek Twp. Police Dept. 23 JE 0013Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; complaint failed to provide any specific operative facts in support of a particular cause of actionHanniJefferson 2/5/2024 2/6/2024 2024-Ohio-414
Cain Ridge Beef Farm, L.L.C. v. Stubbins, Watson, Bryan & Witucky, LPA 23 MO 0006App.R. 25; motion to certify a conflict; conflict must be on the same rule of law, not facts.Per CuriamMonroe 2/1/2024 2/2/2024 2024-Ohio-359
Baronzzi v. Gamble 2022 CO 25Ex-wife appeals post-decree decision reducing spousal support award. Court maintained subject-matter jurisdiction to modify spousal support while an earlier post-decree decision was pending in the court of appeals. Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the ex-wife's request to vocationally evaluate her ex-husband. The ex-wife failed to demonstrate good cause. Spousal support modification was proper despite the foreseeability of a change in circumstance. No evidence that existing award considered the likelihood of a change in financial circumstance.ByrneColumbiana 1/17/2024 1/17/2024 2024-Ohio-154
State v. Ruiter 22 MA 0002App.R. 26(A)(1), obvious error; R.C. 2907.05, sexual contact; R.C. 2907.02, sexual conduct; funds for expert witness; particularized showingPer CuriamMahoning 1/16/2024 1/16/2024 2024-Ohio-149