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 233 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Bodnar v. Regional Income Tax Agency 109715Civ.R. 12(B)(6); motion to dismiss; declaratory judgment; justiciability; abuse of discretion. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing a declaratory judgment claim that does not present a justiciable controversy. A taxpayer who consents to a tax administrator estimating municipal income taxes for the current year and then challenges the estimate does not create a justiciable controversy.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 5/13/2021 5/13/2021 2021-Ohio-1655
State v. Simmons 109786Crim.R. 32.1; postsentence motion to withdraw guilty pleas; abuse of discretion; evidentiary hearing; jurisdiction. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas without a hearing because trial court had no jurisdiction to consider motion to withdraw guilty pleas filed after appellate court affirmed defendant’s convictions.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 5/13/2021 5/13/2021 2021-Ohio-1656
Ra v. Swagelok Mfg. Co., L.L.C. 109789Summary judgment; prima facie case; sexual harassment; gender discrimination; retaliation. The trial court did not err in granting the appellees’ motion for summary judgment because the appellant did not establish a prima facie case for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, or retaliation.Laster MaysCuyahoga 5/13/2021 5/13/2021 2021-Ohio-1657
Covarrubias v. Lowe's Home Improvement, L.L.C. 109819Motion for judgment on the pleadings; Civ.R. 12(C); judgment as a matter of law; de novo review; statute of limitations defense; jurisdiction; e-filing; timestamp; correct docket; cases should be decided on their merits. Appellant’s complaint should have been deemed filed on the day his counsel completed all of the tasks necessary for the complaint to be accepted by the clerk’s office for e-filing. The complaint was therefore timely filed, and it was error to grant judgment on the pleadings in favor of appellees based upon the statute of limitations.KilbaneCuyahoga 5/13/2021 5/13/2021 2021-Ohio-1658
Brown v. Nanteeka Gloves, L.L.C. 109925Motion to vacate; arbitration award; application to confirm arbitration award; motion to vacate arbitration award; R.C. 2711.13; order confirming award. Pursuant to R.C. 2711.13, if a party is not satisfied with the arbitration award,ey may file a motion to modify, vacate, or correct the award within three months after they receive the award. The motion must be based on one of the circumstances outlined in R.C. 2711.10. Once the party fails to file the appropriate motion within the three-month period, the trial court is precluded from modifying or vacating the award. Because appellant did not file a motion to vacate, the trial court properly found that it failed to comply with the statutory mandate for challenging an arbitration award. Based on appellant’s failure to properly file a motion to vacate the arbitration award, the trial lacked jurisdiction to vacate, modify, or correct the award. GrovesCuyahoga 5/13/2021 5/13/2021 2021-Ohio-1659
State v. Jackson 109998Interstate Agreement on Detainers; R.C. 2963.30; request for final disposition; written notice; certificate; substantial compliance; motion to dismiss. Appellant substantially complied with the provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and was required to be brought to trial within 180 days of the date his request for final disposition was filed with the clerk’s office. Because his trial was not commenced within this time period, the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss.BoyleCuyahoga 5/13/2021 5/13/2021 2021-Ohio-1660
State v. Alvarez 109148App.R. 26(B), ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, aggravated vehicular homicide, failure to stop after an accident, allied offenses, guilty plea, and motion to suppress. This court denied an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen because aggravated vehicular homicide and failure to stop after an accident are not allied offenses. Trial counsel was not ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress the fruits of a search, because it was not certain that the motion would have been successful and because trial counsel negotiated a favorable plea agreement. Appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue not pursuing the suppression motion, inter alia, because a guilty plea waives any error in pretrial suppression motions.BoyleCuyahoga 5/7/2021 5/13/2021 2021-Ohio-1654
State v. Ketchum 109490R.C. 2903.211; Crim.R. 7; menacing by stalking. Where an offense requires proof that the defendant committed two or more qualifying actions or incidents closely related in time, a conviction for such an offense, based on an amended indictment that does not contemplate two such actions or incidents, constitutes reversible error.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 5/6/2021 5/6/2021 2021-Ohio-1583
State v. Kauffman 109579Robbery; R.C. 2911.02(A)(3); guilty plea; effect; actual innocence; Crim.R. 11; Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b); prejudice; nunc pro tunc; firearm specifications. Affirmed appellant’s conviction for robbery. Appellant’s guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. The trial court did not completely fail to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b), the advisement regarding the effect of a guilty plea is not a constitutional requirement, and prejudice was not shown. The case was remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose issuing a nunc pro tunc entry to correct a clerical error and delete the firearm specifications from the sentencing entry.S. GallagherCuyahoga 5/6/2021 5/6/2021 2021-Ohio-1584
State v. Sanchez 109673Judicial release; R.C. 2929.20; community control sanctions; medical marijuana. The trial court did not err in revoking Sanchez’s judicial release and reimposing his prison sentence. Sanchez admitted at the judicial release violation hearing that his medical marijuana use violated the conditions of his community control sanctions.BoyleCuyahoga 5/6/2021 5/6/2021 2021-Ohio-1585