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.?
Citation:
   What is 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.
This search returned 189 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Benzle v. Benzle 25AP-995In an appeal of a divorce decree and judgment, appellant failed to provide a copy of the transcript as required by App.R. 9. Also, in the absence of any apparent procedural error by the trial court or cognizable legal authority supporting appellant’s assignments of error, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Judgment affirmed.LelandFranklin 7/23/2026 7/23/2026 2026-Ohio-2838
State v. Jarju 24AP-228Judgment affirmed. The appellant’s conviction for murder and tampering with evidence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was supported by sufficient evidence. The appellant was the only other person at the residence other than the deceased and her version of the incident was not believed. The record showed that the appellant hid the murder weapon and disclosed its location over a year after the murder. Gunshot residue and burns on appellant’s hands confirmed she was the shooter. The jury did not lose its way or commit a manifest miscarriage of justice warranting reversal and a new trial.BoggsFranklin 7/23/2026 7/23/2026 2026-Ohio-2835
Gowda v. State Med. Bd. 25AP-708Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. The State Medical Board’s decision to permanently revoke appellant’s medical license and asses a fine was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The Board was in the best position to determine appellant’s credibility and was able to look to surrounding circumstances to infer an intent by appellant to deceive. Further, appellant’s arguments that the Board imposed disproportionate sanctions and did not take into account mitigating circumstances are overruled. The sanctions imposed by the Board were supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and are within the bounds of R.C. 4731.22.BoggsFranklin 7/23/2026 7/23/2026 2026-Ohio-2837
O'Neal v. Reeves 25AP-635The trial court properly held appellee in contempt of the decree of divorce. Appellant timely appealed trial court's judgment entry adopting the magistrate's decision. However, appellant failed to file objections to the magistrate's decision with the trial court, thereby waiving all but plain error on appeal. Although appellant filed a transcript of the proceedings, appellant failed to argue plain error in the appellate brief and did not demonstrate error by reference to the record. Accordingly, appellant failed to establish reversible error. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations and Juvenile Branch, is affirmed.JamisonFranklin 7/23/2026 7/23/2026 2026-Ohio-2836
Gustafson v. Ohio State Univ. 25AP-936The Court of Claims did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee on appellants’ claims for negligence, negligence per se, and loss of consortium. The defect in the sidewalk was insubstantial as a matter of law under the two-inch rule, and appellants did not introduce any evidence that attendant circumstances rendered the defect in the sidewalk substantial. Appellants could not show a genuine issue of material fact related to negligence per se where the municipal ordinances did not impose a duty on property owners to pedestrians. Because the loss of consortium claim is derivative of the negligence and negligence per se claims, the trial court correctly determined it also fails. Judgment affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 7/21/2026 7/21/2026 2026-Ohio-2792
12345678910...>>