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 133 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State ex rel. Donahue v. Allen Cty. Bd. of Elections 1-21-28There is no genuine issue of material fact reflecting that the board of elections abused its discretion or clearly disregarded the applicable law. Consequently, there is no genuine issue of material fact reflecting that petitioners are entitled to relief in prohibition. Thus, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of respondents.Per CuriamAllen 9/20/2021 9/20/2021 2021-Ohio-3292
In re K.B. 5-20-37; 5-20-38The trial court did not err in granting the Agency’s motion for legal custody of the children. The trial court properly considered the statutory factors in arriving to its decision. ShawHancock 9/20/2021 9/20/2021 2021-Ohio-3273
Simindinger v. Meeker 11-21-02We lack jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff-appellant's first assignment of error. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the defendant-appellee to file an out-of-rule answer based on "excusable neglect". The trial court did not err as a matter of law by determining that plaintiff-appellant's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted since the statute of limitations operated as a time bar of plaintiff-appellant's claims.ZimmermanPaulding 9/20/2021 9/20/2021 2021-Ohio-3274
State v. Rebarchek 5-21-02; 5-21-03Statute allowing indefinite sentece does not facially violate the constitution.WillamowskiHancock 9/13/2021 9/13/2021 2021-Ohio-3142
State v. Hardy 1-20-36Under State v. Pendleton, 2020-Ohio-6833, a trial court may not sentence a defendant for trafficking in five grams but less than ten grams of heroin and for trafficking in five grams but less than ten grams of a fentanyl-related compound when only 7.15 grams of a heroin-fenanyl compound changed hands.WillamowskiAllen 8/30/2021 8/30/2021 2021-Ohio-2977
State v. Salyers 1-20-55The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant's petition for postconviction relief without a hearing.MillerAllen 8/30/2021 8/30/2021 2021-Ohio-2978
State v. Thompson 9-20-35Defendant-appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant-appellant's convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.MillerMarion 8/30/2021 8/30/2021 2021-Ohio-2979
State v. Richard 9-20-36Defendant-appellant’s corrupting-another-with-drugs conviction is based on sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant-appellant’s constitutional right a speedy trial was not violated. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant’s motion for severance. Defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law.ZimmermanMarion 8/30/2021 8/30/2021 2021-Ohio-2980
State v. Barnhart 12-20-08The trial court did not err in applying the indefinite sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law to Appellant’s case. Appellant failed to demonstrate that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the unconstitutionality of the indefinite sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law.ShawPutnam 8/23/2021 8/23/2021 2021-Ohio-2874
State v. Bortree 8-20-67Statute of limitations for attempted aggravated murder had not passed; appellant did not establish prejudicial preindictment delay; trial court did not err by denying various suppression issues; conviction was supported by the evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.ShawLogan 8/23/2021 8/23/2021 2021-Ohio-2873
12345678910...>>