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 216 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Lynch 105122Rape; kidnapping; preindictment delay; actual prejudice; prosecutorial misconduct; ineffective assistance of counsel; double jeopardy; plain error; Crim.R. 52; mistrial; manifest necessity. Appellant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from the delay in prosecution, and thus, the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motions to dismiss for preindictment delay. The prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial. The state's subsequent prosecution was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Appellant was not denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/22/2018 3/22/2018 2018-Ohio-1078
Glatley v. Glatley 104884, 104943, 105179Dissolution, shared parenting plan, separation agreement, R.C. 3105.73, post-decree attorney fees, guardian ad litem fees, children's attorney fees, R.C. Chapter 3119, child support. Interpretation of the separation agreement and shared parenting agreement incorporated into the dissolution of marriage is a matter of contract. Evidence of withdrawal receipts from automated teller machines with handwritten notations indicating the alleged expenditure for which the withdrawal was made is insufficient to demonstrate that the expenses were actually incurred and remitted. The trial court had broad discretion to determine entitlement to post-decree attorney fees in spite of an income disparity. The trial court is given considerable discretion in allocating guardian ad litem fees and the children's attorney fees based on which party caused the need for the services. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating child support and has broad discretion in computing child support where the parents' combined income is greater than $150,000, and the credibility of the complaining spouse may be considered by the trial court in reaching a determination.MaysCuyahoga 3/22/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1077
Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Fraternal Order of Police Ohio Labor Council, Inc. 105209Arbitration award, collective bargaining agreement, police officer, public policy. The arbitration award modifying a police officer's termination to a substantial suspension, without back pay and benefits, drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, was not unlawful, arbitrary, or capricious, and is not against public policy.KeoughCuyahoga 3/22/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1079
Blisswood Village Home Owners Assn. v. Genesis Real Estate Holdings Group, L.L.C. 105312 and 105575Foreclosure; confirmation of sale; R.C. 2329.45; moot; attorney fees. Appellant property owner's consolidated appeals from the order of foreclosure and the order confirming the sale of the property are moot. Appellant never sought a stay of the foreclosure proceedings nor a stay of the distribution of the proceeds from the sale prior to the order of confirmation. The property has been sold to a third party and the proceeds of the sale have been distributed. Thus, there is no available relief and the appeal is moot. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney fees to the foreclosing home owners association under R.C. 5311.081(A)(1)(b).KilbaneCuyahoga 3/22/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1080
State v. Thomas 105375Guilty plea; robbery; R.C. 2905.02; ineffective assistance of counsel; motion to withdraw guilty plea; Crim.R. 11; manifest injustice; Crim.R. 32.1; allied offenses of similar import; R.C. 2941.25; plain error. Appellant was not denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to vacate appellant's guilty plea sua sponte, nor by denying appellant's postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing. The robbery and abduction counts were not allied offenses of similar import, and thus, the trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences on these counts.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/22/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1081
State v. Passafiume 105438 and 105439Crim.R. 32.1; manifest injustice; ineffective assistance of counsel; guilty plea withdrawal; noncitizen client; deportation consequences; Padilla v. Kentucky; new rule; retroactive application. Because Padilla v. Kentucky announced a new rule in Ohio regarding the duty of trial counsel to advise a noncitizen client of deportation consequences at a plea hearing, it cannot be applied retroactively to convictions that had become final before March 31, 2010, when Padilla was decided. Thus, appellant cannot rely on Padilla to establish counsel's deficient performance in the plea proceedings from 2009. Additionally, the record demonstrates the trial court fully complied with Crim.R. 11 and appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered guilty pleas. Thus, appellant has not demonstrated that counsel's performance resulted in a fundamental flaw in the plea proceedings.McCormackCuyahoga 3/22/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1083
N. Olmstead v. Rock 105566North Olmsted Ordinances 1363.105, 1363.302.1, 1363.302.2; sufficiency; first- degree misdemeanor sentencing; R.C. 2929.25. Defendant's convictions for failing to remove rubbish and discarded items from her yard, and failing to comply with a notice of violations were supported by sufficient evidence. Defendant's sentence was not erroneous.BlackmonCuyahoga 3/22/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1084
In re A.S. 105651Juvenile court; temporary custody; standing; educational neglect. The juvenile court did not err in upholding the magistrate's award of temporary custody to DCFS because the allegations in the complaint had not been adequately addressed.McCormackCuyahoga 3/22/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1085
State v. Buchanan 105706Crim.R. 29/motion for acquittal; manifest weight; prejudicial error; plain error; allied offenses; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)/consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a)/repeat violent offender. The trial court's denial of appellant's motion for acquittal was proper. The state provided sufficient evidence to sustain the element of serious physical harm; the jury had the task of determining how much weight to give to the victim's in-court identification of appellant. The kidnapping and rape offenses were separate crimes with a separate animus and therefore not allied offenses. The trial court considered and stated its findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) regarding consecutive sentences, and found that appellant qualified as a repeat violent offender under R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a). Appellant's sentence is supported by the record and is not contrary to law.JonesCuyahoga 3/22/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1086
In re Invenstigation into the November 22, 2014 Shooting Death of Tamir Rice 105707Petition for release; grand jury transcripts; Crim.R. 6(E); public interest; particularized need that outweighs need for secrecy. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' petition for the release of grand jury transcripts and exhibits. Petitioners' request for disclosure was not for a purpose authorized under Crim.R. 6(E) and petitioners did not demonstrate a particularized need for disclosure that outweighs the need for secrecy.GallagherCuyahoga 3/22/2018 3/23/2018 2018-Ohio-1087