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 295 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Mercer v. Goans 109651Civ.R. 56, summary judgment, defamation per se. The trial court properly granted summary judgment. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the statements complained of were false, which is a key element of a defamation per se claim.Laster MaysCuyahoga 6/10/2021 6/10/2021 2021-Ohio-1948
State v. Sealey 109670Reagan Tokes Law; constitutionality of statute; due process; rebuttable presumption of release; liberty interest; notice; opportunity to be heard; minimum safeguards. The Reagan Tokes Law, which establishes an indefinite sentencing scheme for certain felonies, is unconstitutional in that it violates prison inmates’ due process rights. The presumptive release date in R.C. 2967.271 creates a liberty interest. This liberty interest requires at least the minimum due process protections of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The statutory procedures found in R.C. 2967.271(C) and (D) and used to rebut the presumptive release date do not provide the required due process safeguards.ForbesCuyahoga 6/10/2021 6/10/2021 2021-Ohio-1949
Austin v. Warrensville Hts. 109791Negligence; Civ.R. 12(C)/motion for judgment on the pleadings; R.C. Chapter 2744/immunity; duty of care. Appellants failed to show that the city employee function was proprietary and not governmental thereby failing to establish an exception for immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 existed. The special assessment inured a pecuniary interest to the homeowners of the city, including appellants and not to the city. Appellants failed to show that a fiduciary-like or legal relationship existed between appellants and appellee; appellee therefore had no duty to appellants. The trial court’s grant of appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was proper.JonesCuyahoga 6/10/2021 6/10/2021 2021-Ohio-1950
Cleveland v. Wanton 109828Crim.R. 48; dismissal of criminal charges; Crim.R. 5; standard of review; abuse of discretion. A trial court has jurisdiction to dismiss a criminal case pursuant to Crim.R. 48 and such dismissal is reviewed upon an abuse of discretion. Crim.R. 5 does not prohibit the filing of misdemeanor charges in a municipal court and the simultaneous prosecution of associated felony charges in a common pleas court, nor does a violation of the rule mandate dismissal of charges. The trial court’s application of Crim.R. 5 to a case in which no felony charges were filed is a misapplication of law and constitutes an abuse of discretion.SheehanCuyahoga 6/10/2021 6/10/2021 2021-Ohio-1951
Univ. Hts. v. Allen 109872Civ.R. 60(B)/motion for relief from judgment; motion for reconsideration. The record does not sustain appellant’s claim that appellant filed a motion for relief from judgment rather than a motion for reconsideration. There was no error where the trial court denied appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s previous judgment.JonesCuyahoga 6/10/2021 6/10/2021 2021-Ohio-1952
Fredieu v. Case W. Res. Univ. 109877Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; breach of contract; tenure; damages; causation; substantial prejudice. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of appellee. Appellant failed to demonstrate that but for appellee’s purported breach of contract, he would have been awarded tenure. Accordingly, appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. S. GallagherCuyahoga 6/10/2021 6/10/2021 2021-Ohio-1953
Kennedy v. Stadtlander 109880Arbitration agreement; motion for order compelling arbitration. The trial court erred where it denied appellants’ joint motion to compel arbitration. Appellee’s claims, under the terms of the operating agreement, fall within the scope of the arbitration clause.JonesCuyahoga 6/10/2021 6/10/2021 2021-Ohio-1954
Smith v. Smith 109899Civ.R. 56(C)/summary judgment; statute of limitations; laches; abuse of discretion. Appellant’s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations, alternately, appellee’s laches defense is not applicable. The trial court did not abuse its discretion where it granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment.JonesCuyahoga 6/10/2021 6/10/2021 2021-Ohio-1955
State v. Williams 109903Judicial release; statutory findings; R.C. 2929.20(J).E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 6/10/2021 6/10/2021 2021-Ohio-1956
Vo v. Gorski 109962Motion to dismiss; nunc pro tunc order; Civ.R. 60(A); clerical mistakes; errors of oversight or omission; substantive changes; dismissal with prejudice; dismissal without prejudice; final, appealable order; jurisdiction. Trial court erred in using a nunc pro tunc order to modify its dismissal of complaint “without prejudice” to a dismissal “with prejudice” where there was nothing in the record that showed that the trial court’s nunc pro tunc order sought to correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from oversight or omission or that the trial court had actually decided to dismiss complaint with prejudice and then inadvertently indicated that complaint was dismissed without prejudice in its original order. Nunc pro tunc order vacated; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to the extent appellant challenged trial court’s dismissal of complaint without prejudice.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 6/10/2021 6/10/2021 2021-Ohio-1957