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 342 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re K.L. L-17-1201, L-17-1210Judgment terminating parental rights affirmed.PietrykowskiLucas 12/13/2017 12/13/2017 2017-Ohio-9003
Fuller v. Anchor Pointe Marina L-17-1051Out of court statement of a deceased office worker is not hearsay where it was an admission of a party opponent made by a servant of appellee during the course of her employment. Genuine issue of material fact exists whether appellee agreed to remove the drain plugs from appellants' boat where the office worker told appellants, "We'll take care of it," and "We got it winterized, shored, everything's taken care of." Premises liability claim must fail where appellant had actual knowledge of the hazard.PietrykowskiLucas 12/8/2017 12/8/2017 2017-Ohio-8921
State v. Mick E-16-074The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding appellant in direct contempt and imposing sanctions because the record revealed he disobeyed lawful orders of the court and obstructed the administration of justice without justification. SingerErie 12/8/2017 12/8/2017 2017-Ohio-8922
State v. Neal L-16-1267An 18-month prison sentence is not error, despite the stated term being the maximum possible sanction within the statutory range of R.C. 2929.14(A)(4), where the sentence is justified under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and the trial court's findings are supported by the record. Singer Lucas 12/8/2017 12/8/2017 2017-Ohio-8923
State v. Willis WD-16-048Appellant's guilty plea waived review of the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss. Appellant failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel before his guilty plea because his attorneys' performance was not deficient. The record does not support appellant's contention that the trial court failed to terminate his administrative license suspension upon his conviction.MayleWood 12/8/2017 12/8/2017 2017-Ohio-8924
In re D.M. L-16-1237, L-16-1238, L-16-1270In reverse-bindover procedure under R.C. 2151.121(B)(3), juvenile court did not abuse its discretion or violate juvenile offender's due process rights when it transferred jurisdiction to the adult court for imposition of sentence. Also, the adult court's decision to impose consecutive sentences was fully supported by the record and the judgment entry.MayleLucas 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 2017-Ohio-8768
State v. Phillips L-16-1097Trial court properly imposed postrelease control on appellant. Judgment affirmed.OsowikLucas 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 2017-Ohio-8769
State v. Boaston L-15-1274Murder, expert testimony, written report, Crim.R. 16(K), Crim.R. 12, waiver, scientific validity and reliability, phone records, cell phone tower, plain error, Crim.R. 52(B), harmless error, Crim.R 52(A), other acts, Evid.R. 803(2), hearsay, Evid.R. 803(3JensenLucas 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 2017-Ohio-8770
State v. Shoecraft L-16-1228The state provided legally sufficient evidence to establish rape and kidnapping; and the state met its burden of persuasion as the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence presented at trial where the victim testified that appellant grabbed her by the back of the neck, forced her to drive him to a liquor store, and there digitally penetrated her vagina against her will.PietrykowskiLucas 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 2017-Ohio-8771
Stachura v. Toledo L-16-1310, L-16-1315, L-16-1316The trial court did not err in denying appellants' partial motion for summary judgment. Material issue of fact of immunity eligibility remains in dispute. Judgment affirmed.OsowikLucas 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 2017-Ohio-8772