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 182 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Zimmerer CA2019-10-176Appellant's conviction for voyeurism was supported by sufficient evidence where the victim testified that she looked over her shoulder and saw appellant's arm outstretched behind her body holding his phone, which was in camera mode, displaying on its screen the edge of her dress, her legs, and the back of her thigh, which would have been covered by her dress while appellant was at the victim's home to service her air conditioner. The trial court did not err by admitting evidence that appellant had photographed a woman's backside while she was climbing her basement steps while appellant was on a service call at the woman's house as that evidence was admissible to show an absence of mistake or accident where appellant claimed it was an accident that his phone's forward-facing camera was turned on and pointed up the victim's skirt.S. PowellButler 8/3/2020 8/3/2020 2020-Ohio-3921
Contract Supply, Inc. v. T.H. Marsh Constr. Co. CA2019-11-193; CA2019-11-195Common pleas court erred in granting the developer's Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss subcontractor's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by virtue of an arbitration clause.M. PowellButler 8/3/2020 8/3/2020 2020-Ohio-3922
State v. Taylor CA2020-01-013Anders no error.Per CuriamButler 8/3/2020 8/3/2020 2020-Ohio-3923
State v. Sallis CA2019-12-092Appellant's sentence is not contrary to law where the trial court considered the requisite statutory factors, properly applied postrelease control, and sentenced appellant within the statutory range. PiperClermont 8/3/2020 8/3/2020 2020-Ohio-3924
State v. Schrader CA2019-02-025; CA2019-02-026Trial court lacked jurisdiction to file amended sentencing entries to correct clerical mistake after the defendant filed a notice of appeal.M. PowellFayette 8/3/2020 8/3/2020 2020-Ohio-3925
State v. Fabian CA2019-10-119Defendant's guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered where the trial court failed to advise him of postrelease control, a component of the maximum penalty, before accepting his plea.M. PowellWarren 8/3/2020 8/3/2020 2020-Ohio-3926
In re D.K. CA2020-02-002; CA2020-02-004Anders no error.Per CuriamFayette 7/27/2020 7/27/2020 2020-Ohio-3840
Coomes v. Coomes CA2019-10-076The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 3105.73(B) where the award was equitable given husband's conduct throughout the litigation as well as husband's ability to pay. RinglandClermont 7/27/2020 7/27/2020 2020-Ohio-3839
State v. Kaufhold CA2019-09-148The trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion for acquittal where the state presented sufficient evidence to support appellant's conviction for rape and sexual battery indicating appellant either knew or had reasonable cause to believe the victim's ability to resist or consent was substantially impaired as a result of the victim becoming intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol prior to them having sex. Moreover, the state did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct as alleged by appellant where the state did not fabricate evidence during its closing argument, but instead merely reiterated the trial testimony offered to the jury. The state also did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct by misstating the evidence and misleading the jury as appellant alleged. Additionally, appellant's claims alleging he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel lack merit where the conduct appellant complained of was either a part of his trial counsel's trial strategy and/or was not prejudicial in that it did not impact the outcome of the case given the extensive evidence proving appellant's guilt. Finally, the trial court did not err by sentencing appellant to a mandatory prison term given the fact that any sentence imposed for any rape, regardless of whether force was involved and regardless of the age of the victim, is mandatory by operation of law.S. PowellButler 7/27/2020 7/27/2020 2020-Ohio-3835
State v. Tillett CA2019-11-192The trial court did not err in imposing concurrent 60-month prison sentences on both of appellant's convictions for third-degree gross sexual imposition as the court properly considered the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12. Appellant's sentence is not contrary to law and is supported by the record as there were multiple offenses that occurred over an extended period of time, the victim was a young child, appellant held position of trust as the victim's grandfather, and the victim suffered psychological harm as a result of appellant's actions. HendricksonButler 7/27/2020 7/27/2020 2020-Ohio-3836
12345678910...>>