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 184 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
A.B.C. Home Care v. Molina Healthcare 17AP-582Home care agency's contract claim would be resolved without reference to an agreement between the agency and its healthcare provider. Therefore, it was not subject to the arbitration provision in the agreement. However, the agency's tort claims arose from the agreement and were therefore subject to arbitration.TyackFranklin 6/19/2018 6/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2370
Hunter v. Shield 17AP-751In a case involving the allegedly faulty application of ceramic coating on a residence, the trial court did not err in determining, based on the facts of the case, that it lacked personal jurisdiction under Civ.R. 4.3(A) and R.C. 2307.382 over an out-of-state corporate defendant who supplied the coating to the entity that contracted with the homeowners. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 6/19/2018 6/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2371
17AP-845 State v. LongAs the defendant's sentence was prescribed by law, the trial court's error in failing to allow him to allocute was harmless. The trial court's failure to inform the defendant of his appellate rights should have been challenged by a direct appeal (either timely or delayed), not by a motion for reconsideration.BrunnerFranklin 6/19/2018 6/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2372
State v. Wimbley 18AP-62Judgment affirmed. Appellant's postconviction petition is untimely, resulting in a lack of jurisdiction. In addition, even if the trial court had jurisdiction, both of appellant's claimed grounds for relief are barred by res judicata and are meritless.HortonFranklin 6/19/2018 6/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2373
In re: P.A. 17AP-728The trial court did not err in concluding that appellant was a mentally ill person subject to court order and, thus, subject to involuntary commitment to a mental hospital. The trial court did not err in permitting the forced medication of appellant with psychotropic medication.KlattFranklin 6/14/2018 6/14/2018 2018-Ohio-2314
McDougald v. ODRC 17AP-776Court of Claims did not err in granting appellee's motion to dismiss appellant's complaint.Brown, P.J.Franklin 6/14/2018 6/14/2018 2018-Ohio-2315
State v. Dilo 16AP-324Judgment affirmed. Because the evidence presented by the state against defendant-appellant was not legally insufficient to convict him of aggravated possession of drugs under R.C. 2925.11 and aggravated trafficking in drugs under R.C. 2925.03, his convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the three assignments of error are overruled.HortonFranklin 6/14/2018 6/14/2018 2018-Ohio-2316
Bahgat v. Kissling 17AP-641Appellant's contention that the trial court erred in denying an extension of time to file a hearing transcript to support his factual objections to a magistrate's decision lacked merit, and, concomitantly, the trial court did not err in sanctioning appellant under R.C. 2323.51. Appellant likewise did not demonstrate the trial court erred in regard to adjudicating his Consumer Sales Practices Act claim. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 6/14/2018 6/14/2018 2018-Ohio-2317
State v. Jackson 17AP-863The judgment of the trial court dismissing defendant-appellant’s motion for a new mitigation trial under Crim.R. 33 is affirmed, as the Supreme Court of Ohio’s opinion in State v. Mason, ___Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-1462, precludes his challenge to the constitutionality of Ohio’s death penalty statute, R.C. 2929.03-04, under the holding of Hurst v. Florida, ___U.S.___, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016).HortonFranklin 6/14/2018 6/14/2018 2018-Ohio-2318
State ex rel. Boddie, Jr. v. Baldwin 17AP-817Petition dismissed. The magistrate recommends dismissing the petition because petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C). No objections to the magistrate’s decision have been filed. The decision is adopted.HortonFranklin 6/14/2018 6/14/2018 2018-Ohio-2319