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 85 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Roubanes-Luke v. Roubanes 16AP-766The trial court erred in concluding that a party's false testimony regarding his annual income constituted a fraud upon the court justifying relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(5). The trial court properly found that a party's misstatements regarding the value of a marital asset did not qualify as a fraud upon the court warranting relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(5).KlattFranklin 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1065
State ex rel. Pritt v. Indus. Comm. 17AP-98Because some evidence in the record supports the commission finding relator is medically capable of engaging in sustained remunerative employment of a sedentary nature and the relevant nonmedical disability factors do not preclude relator from currently engaging in such employment, the fact that the commission incorrectly relied on relator's non-allowed conditions as a basis for denying PTD in a separate portion of the order does not constitute grounds for the granting of a writ of mandamus. Writ denied.SadlerFranklin 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1066
State ex rel. Brust v. Mohr 17AP-275Inmate was not entitled to a writ to change facts in his Ohio Parole Board Information Sheet.TyackFranklin 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1067
State v. Jackson 17AP-309The trial court did not err in denying Jackson's motion to suppress.Luper SchusterFranklin 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1068
State v. Byrd 17AP-387The trial court did not err in denying Byrd's motion to suppress, the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence supported Byrd's convictions, and Byrd did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel. However, because the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without making the requisite findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), we must remand this matter for resentencing.Luper SchusterFranklin 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1069
State v. Hayward 17AP-390The trial court did not err in denying Hayward's motion to suppress, and the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence supported Hayward's convictions.Luper SchusterFranklin 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1070
State v. Enyart 17AP-507The trial court did not err when it denied appellant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea because Crim.R. 32.1 does not vest jurisdiction in the trial court to hear and determine a motion to withdraw a plea subsequent to an appeal and an affirmance by the appellate court. State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978). Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1071
Hadler v. Thompson 17AP-578Failure to enter an appearance in a foreclosure case made setting aside the judgment through use of Civ.R. 60(B) inappropriate.TyackFranklin 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1072
State v. Rogers 17AP-610Judgment affirmed. Because the indictment was not defective, appellant's claim that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction is without merit. Moreover, as appellant's conviction was not void, res judicata bars any claims that appellant could have raised in the trial court before conviction or on appeal after conviction.HortonFranklin 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1073
C.L. v. T.B. 17AP-813The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying C.L.'s petition for a civil protection order.Luper SchusterFranklin 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1074