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 302 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Branscum v. Sullenberger 2020-CA-23The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees and expenses based on appellant’s contempt; the fees and expenses related either to activity which culminated in appellant admitting she was in contempt of court or to activity to enforce the resulting contempt order. Moreover, the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the amount of the award. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 9/17/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3250
State v. O'Donnell 2020-CA-26Appellant’s conviction for grand theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(2) was not supported by sufficient evidence where the State failed to present any evidence at trial to establish that appellant intended to deprive his clients of the money they gave him to complete their home construction project. Judgment of conviction vacated.WelbaumChampaign 9/17/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3253
State v. Robinson 2021-CA-3The jury’s finding appellant guilty of murder, felonious assault, and felony murder, rather than the inferior offenses of voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, and involuntary manslaughter, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant failed to prove a mitigating circumstance. Appellant also fails to show that trial counsel performed deficiently in defending him. Judgment affirmed.HallClark 9/17/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3255
State v. McComb 28946Appellant’s conviction for criminal damaging was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 9/17/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3251
State v. Gapen 28808The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled appellant’s motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial. The trial court did not err in finding that appellant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the grounds for his claims. Likewise, the trial court did not err in finding that appellant failed to act within a reasonable time or to adequately explain the delay in filing his motion for leave. Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion when it did not rule on the merits of appellant’s claims. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 9/17/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3252
Peterson v. Securitas Security Serv. 29094The trial court did not err in affirming the Unemployment Compensation Review Board’s decision that appellant was discharged for just cause. The record indicates that appellant failed to appear for work and was discharged in accordance with company policy. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 9/17/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3254
Bajaj v. Green 2021-CA-7The trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the parties’ shared parenting plan, designating Mother the residential and custodial parent, and calculating Father’s new child support obligation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to interview the five-year-old child regarding insensitive comments the child allegedly made. Judgment affirmed.EpleyDarke 9/10/2021 9/10/2021 2021-Ohio-3113
State v. Castonguay 2021-CA-2The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal based upon venue. Darke County was a proper venue because the offenses appellant committed were committed “as part of the same transaction or chain of events, or in furtherance of the same purpose or objective,” namely to deprive the victim and his wife of funds contained in their electronically-stored bank accounts that the victim could access online from his residence in Darke County. The trial court did not err in allowing three of the State’s witnesses to testify remotely; the record establishes that the State sufficiently justified the witnesses’ unavailability. However, even if the State did not sufficiently justify the witnesses’ testifying remotely, we find the trial court’s admission of the witnesses’ remote testimony harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Judgment affirmed.DonovanDarke 9/10/2021 9/10/2021 2021-Ohio-3116
Henderson v. Henderson 2020-CA-40 & 2021-CA-5The trial court did not err by ordering appellant to pay spousal support for 48 months and retaining jurisdiction for an additional 48 months, as appellee has a degenerative disease and may be unable to work until retirement age. Likewise, the trial court did not err by ordering appellant to pay part of appellee’s attorney’s fees. Judgment affirmed.EpleyGreene 9/10/2021 9/10/2021 2021-Ohio-3117
State v. Jackson 29000Appellant’s motion for a new trial raised an issue of which he would have been aware in the course of the trial at which he was convicted, and he presented no new additional information in support of his motion. Specifically, appellant knew that the police had subpoenaed cell service location information from his cell phone provider. Thus, his argument was barred by res judicata. State v. Carpenter, __ U.S.__, 138 S.Ct. 2206, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018), which held that obtaining cell service location information without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, did not apply to this case retroactively. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 9/10/2021 9/10/2021 2021-Ohio-3114
12345678910...>>