Opinion Search

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:

Source:

Year Decided From:

Year Decided To:

Year Decided Range Warning:

The selected 'Year Decided To:' is less than the selected 'Year Decided From:'.  Please select a 'To:' year newer than or equal to the 'From:' year.

County:

Case Number:

Author:

Topics and Issues:

WebCite No:

-Ohio-

Citation:

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.

Hide Topics and Issues column This search returned 179 rows. Rows per page:

State v. Woodley

24AP-678, 24AP-679, 24AP-680

Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not lack subject-matter jurisdiction over defendant-appellant’s criminal cases as a result of defendant-appellant’s filing of pro-se cases in federal court. Nor did defendant-appellant demonstrate a violation of his statutory or constitutional rights to a speedy trial. Each of the continuances signed by defense counsel tolled the time in which the state was required to bring defendant-appellant to trial under R.C. 2945.71(C)(2), even if defendant-appellant did not agree to the continuance or to waive his right to a speedy-trial. Finally, defendant-appellant did not demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Boggs

Franklin

7/9/2026

2026-Ohio-2618

State v. Justice

25AP-282

Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err when dismissing appellant’s petition for postconviction relief as untimely under 2953.23 where appellant was not unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence she points to as grounds for relief. The evidence in question, a video uploaded to YouTube, was publicly available and not in possession of the state. Therefore, as a matter of law, the video could not have been unconstitutionally withheld from the defense under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Furthermore, the fact of incarceration does not satisfy the requirement of producing clear and convincing evidence that she was unavoidably prevented from obtaining the video within the time limit for seeking postconviction relief.

Per Curiam

Franklin

7/9/2026

2026-Ohio-2619

In re T.A.-N.

25AP-733

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the issue is moot and none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applies. Appeal dismissed.

Beatty Blunt

Franklin

7/9/2026

2026-Ohio-2620

Young v. Franklin Cty. Treasurer

25AP-826

Trial court did not err in granting appellees’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.

Leland

Franklin

7/9/2026

2026-Ohio-2621

Burns v. Fodor

26AP-5

The trial court did not err in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment on appellants’ claim of undue influence where appellants failed to point to any evidence demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether appellees actually exerted or attempted to exert undue influence related to the amendment of a trust. Judgment affirmed.

Edelstein

Franklin

7/9/2026

2026-Ohio-2622

...