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 482 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
131 Miles, L.L.C. v. 3M&B, L.L.C. 109558Civ.R. 11; R.C. 2323.51; attorney fees; sanctions; frivolous conduct; unjust enrichment; abuse of discretion; de novo. In order to prove that a claim is not warranted under existing law, the appellant must prove that no reasonable lawyer would have brought the claim. Here, appellant argues that appellees had no valid claim against it because they never contracted for any construction work together. Rather, appellees contracted with a franchisee of appellant. While it is true that their status solely as franchisor does not make them liable under the contracts of its franchisees, they could become liable if the relationship extends to that of a principal-agent. Therefore, appellees could argue in good faith, under existing law that appellant could become liable for the contact appellees had with appellant’s franchisee if a principal-agent relationship exists. Under Civ.R. 11, we find nothing in the record to suggest that appellees’ attorney did not read the third-party complaint against appellant nor do we find any evidence that it was filed for purposes of delay. Further, as discussed, there is a good faith argument under existing law for the arguments made in the third-party complaint, so it cannot be said that the attorney did not harbor good grounds to support it to the best of his knowledge.ForbesCuyahoga 9/16/2021 9/16/2021 2021-Ohio-3198
State v. Graham 109582Evid.R. 403; gruesome photographs; plain error; abuse of discretion; ineffective assistance of counsel; manifest weight of the evidence; aggravated murder. The admission of relevant evidence is within the trial court’s discretion, and the admission of a large quantity of photographs without objection did not amount to plain error where the photographs were relevant and aided the witnesses in testifying as to the victim’s injuries and cause of death. The failure to object to the relevant photographs was not ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the convictions were supported by overwhelming evidence and any minor inconsistencies in witness testimony did not undermine evidence of the appellant’s guilt.KilbaneCuyahoga 9/16/2021 9/16/2021 2021-Ohio-3199
State v. Harris 109997Motion to suppress; reasonable suspicion; reversal; furtive movement. Trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. The traffic stop was extended and there was no reasonable suspicion that would support extending the stop.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 9/16/2021 9/16/2021 2021-Ohio-3200
In re G.S. 110198Hazing; kidnapping; sexual battery; unlawful restraint; delinquent; disposition; probation report; recommendation; plain error; discretion; abuse of discretion; overriding purposes; reasonably calculated; ineffective assistance of counsel; continuance; community control; Ohio Department of Youth Services; juvenile sex offender; assessment; R.C. 2152.19(A); R.C. 2152.01(A); R.C. 2152.01(B). Affirmed the disposition ordered by the juvenile court after appellant was adjudicated delinquent of multiple felony and misdemeanor counts arising from a hazing incident. The charges included kidnapping, and multiple counts of sexual battery, unlawful restraint, and hazing. The trial court acted within its discretion in proceeding to disposition despite the lack of a completed juvenile sex offender registration and notification assessment and a recommendation in the probation report. No plain error occurred in this regard, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a continuance. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion committing appellant to the Ohio Department of Youth Services. The record demonstrated the juvenile court considered the overriding purposes of delinquency disposition under R.C. 2152.01(A) and that the disposition was reasonably calculated to achieve those purposes.S. GallagherCuyahoga 9/16/2021 9/16/2021 2021-Ohio-3201
State v. Collier 110222Jail-time credit; plain error; department of corrections and rehabilitation. Trial court erred by including time served in ODRC custody in its jail-time calculation because the ODRC is solely responsible for calculating jail-time credit for time served in its custody.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 9/16/2021 9/16/2021 2021-Ohio-3202
State v. Collier 110225Judicial release; R.C. 2929.20; eligible offender; agreed sentence; jail-time credit; breach of sentencing agreement. The trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for judicial release because it believed that defendant's sentence was an agreed-upon mandatory sentence when it was not.BoyleCuyahoga 9/16/2021 9/16/2021 2021-Ohio-3203
Cuyahoga Cty. Treasurer v. Berger Properties of Ohio L.L.C. 110233Foreclosure; R.C. 2923.44; discretion of court to distribute excess funds. In a foreclosure action, the trial court retains jurisdiction to distribute excess funds after a sheriff’s sale. R.C. 2944 does not apply to mandate distribution of excess funds to the owner where the trial court has not finalized the case. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in distributing excess funds to a bank that held a judgment against the property owner, even though the bank did not join the foreclosure action until after the sheriff’s sale was completed.SheehanCuyahoga 9/16/2021 9/16/2021 2021-Ohio-3204
Watt v. Westfield Nat. Ins. Co. 110263Summary judgment: underinsured motorist coverage; breach of contract; contract interpretation. Defendant insurance company is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because the decedent was not an insured under her fiance’s primary or umbrella insurance policies. Trial court’s judgment affirmed.ForbesCuyahoga 9/16/2021 9/16/2021 2021-Ohio-3205
State v. Robinson 110278Petition for postconviction relief; hearing; ineffective assistance of counsel; mental health issues; abuse of discretion. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s petition for postconviction relief without a hearing because defendant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his mental health issues prior to trial could have been brought on direct appeal and thus was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and even if the claim was not barred by res judicata, the record demonstrated that the defendant’s claim was without merit.KeoughCuyahoga 9/16/2021 9/16/2021 2021-Ohio-3206
Farmer v. Healthcare Bridge 110469Claim for unpaid overtime wages; App.R. 9(B) duty to file a transcript. Appellant failed to file a transcript of the trial that is the basis of her appeal. Accordingly, we have nothing to review and must presume the regularity of the lower court’s proceedings.ForbesCuyahoga 9/16/2021 9/16/2021 2021-Ohio-3207
12345678910...>>