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 374 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Mobley 18AP-205Where officers observed what objectively resembled a hand-to-hand drug transaction, detected the smell of marijuana coming from the vehicle and saw marijuana grinders in plain-view inside the car, probable cause existed to search the car and containers within it that logically could have contained marijuana. The officers were not required to accept the defendant's assurance the marijuana they found on his person was the only marijuana in the car and they were justified in continuing their search, including searching containers in the vehicle such as the defendant’s backpack, in which they found the gun for which he was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Judgment affirmed.BrunnerFranklin 11/20/2018 11/20/2018 2018-Ohio-4678
Veterans & Fraternal Charitable Coalition v. DeWine 18AP-199The trial court did not err in its interpretation of R.C. 2915.01(CC).Luper SchusterFranklin 11/20/2018 11/20/2018 2018-Ohio-4679
Clark v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. 18AP-105STRS exceeded its statutory authority under R.C. 3305.061 when it increased the mitigating rate for participants in alternative retirement plans.TyackFranklin 11/20/2018 11/20/2018 2018-Ohio-4680
State v. Staten 18AP-48Appellant's burglary and theft convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.Luper SchusterFranklin 11/20/2018 11/20/2018 2018-Ohio-4681
de Bourbon v. State Med. Bd. 17AP-769Trial court did not err when it affirmed the decision of the state medical board.BrownFranklin 11/20/2018 11/20/2018 2018-Ohio-4682
State v. McVay 17AP-421Trial court did not err when it found the defendant was incompetent to stand trial and not restorable to competency.BrownFranklin 11/20/2018 11/20/2018 2018-Ohio-4683
In re L.C.C. 18AP-167Because appellant, the biological mother of L.C.C., failed to argue in the trial court that the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Ohio and United States Constitutions require appointment of counsel to an indigent parent in a private adoption proceeding, appellant waived all but plain error for purposes of appeal. Trial court did not commit plain error when it did not appoint counsel for appellant in the private adoption proceeding because not doing so is not an obvious violation of equal protection or due process under the current state of Ohio and federal law, nor was structural error committed. The trial court did not commit plain error by adopting magistrate's conclusion that appellant's consent to the adoption was not required, nor did the trial court abuse its discretion when it sustained appellee's objections to the magistrate's decision and concluded that the child's adoption by appellee, the child's maternal aunt, was in the child's best interest. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4617
State v. Anderson 18AP-103The trial court's order of restitution in a felony case was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where record evidence demonstrated the trial court considered appellant's present and future ability to pay restitution under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) and 2929.18(A)(1). Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4618
Grove City v. Sample 18AP-30The record failed to support appellant's claim that his guilty plea to a misdemeanor assault charge was not knowingly and voluntarily made due to his alleged understanding restitution would not be imposed. However, the trial court committed plain error by ordering restitution when the record did not contain competent, credible evidence establishing the amount of loss sustained by the victim pursuant to R.C. 2929.28. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part; cause remanded.SadlerFranklin 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4619
Groveport Madison Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision 17AP-693In a tax appeal case involving two competing appraisals that differed on issues surrounding present use, highest and best use, choice of comparable properties, and capitalization rates, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was reasonable and lawful under R.C. 5717.04 in determining the Board of Education presented the most credible, competent, and probative indication of the subject property's value. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4620
12345678910...>>