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-	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:

Hide Topics and Issues column

This search returned 5 rows.

Rows per page:

Case Caption	Case No.	Topics and Issues	Author	Citation / County	Decided	Posted	WebCite
State v. Prichard	WD-25-028	Per Mayle, J., Trial court erred in admitting document produced in discovery by defendant and offered by State because it was not properly authenticated. Implied authentication not appropriate under circumstances of this criminal case where rules of evidence apply. Even excising improper evidence, error was harmless because remaining evidence established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim relating to same evidence fails second element of Strickland.	Mayle	Wood	1/9/2026	1/9/2026	2026-Ohio-56
State v. Rahe	WD-25-023	The trial court’s judgment is affirmed where an appellate court, as a matter of law, is prohibited from reviewing the court’s compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 at sentencing. State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729.	Sulek	Wood	1/9/2026	1/9/2026	2026-Ohio-59
Charlie's CDJR, L.L.C. v. Charlie's Toledo, Inc.	L-24-1120	Trial court properly granted summary judgments to appellees because appellees are entitled to judgments as a matter of law where there are no genuine issues of material fact. Judgments affirmed. Osowik.	Osowik	Lucas	1/6/2026	1/6/2026	2026-Ohio-18
State v. Haskins	L-24-1248	Officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain appellant because he did not match vague description of suspect. Court did not err by denying motion to suppress because evidence would have been inevitably discovered during search incident to lawful arrest. Officers’ testimony authenticated videos because they viewed videos on surveillance system at store. Court erred by sentencing appellant to three mandatory firearm specifications when statute requires only two mandatory sentences. Duhart	Duhart	Lucas	1/6/2026	1/6/2026	2026-Ohio-19
State v. Thomas	L-25-00049	Per Mayle, J., trial court did not err by admitting 911 calls. Statements in the calls were made to get help during an ongoing emergency, so they were nontestimonial and their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court’s inclusion of all possible terms of postrelease control in sentencing entry did not reflect notice that it gave at sentencing hearing, which can be corrected with nunc pro tunc entry.	Mayle	Lucas	1/6/2026	1/6/2026	2026-Ohio-20