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 882 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
SMS Fin. XXVI, L.L.C. v. Waxman Chabad Ctr. 106036; 106037Res judicata, claim preclusion, final appealable order. The trial court erred in finding that res judicata applied to a 2016 commercial foreclosure action. In 2014, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees in a commercial foreclosure action finding that the underlying promissory note was not properly endorsed. This court dismissed the appeal of that judgment and remanded the case to the trial court due to the lack of a final appealable order as the result of an outstanding fraud count. On remand, the 2014 case was consolidated with a newly filed 2016 case between the same parties involving an endorsed version of the promissory note. In a single entry, the trial court again granted summary judgment in the 2014 case and determined that the 2016 filing was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, a finding that conflicted with the trial court’s concurrent scheduling of a pretrial on the remaining fraud count in the 2014 case, indicating the matter was not, in fact, final.Laster MaysCuyahoga 12/6/2018 12/6/2018 2018-Ohio-4851
State v. Anglero 106336Res judicata; motion to withdraw guilty plea; imposition of postrelease control. Defendant’s challenge to the imposition of a fine as part of his felony sentence is barred by res judicata, because he did not raise the issue in a direct appeal. The court properly notified defendant about postrelease control; therefore, the court did nor err when it denied his motion to withdraw guilty plea.BlackmonCuyahoga 12/6/2018 12/6/2018 2018-Ohio-4852
State v. Everette 106389Guilty plea; trial court’s involvement in the plea bargaining process; Crim.R. 11(C); maximum penalty. The trial court’s statements outlining the maximum potential prison sentence defendant would be facing if he were found guilty after a trial, do not amount to involvement in the plea bargaining process. To the contrary, the trial court was merely advising the defendant of the maximum penalty he could receive if he went to trial and was found guilty of all the counts alleged against him in the indictment. Under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), the trial court must be sure that before a defendant pleads guilty to a felony, he knows the maximum penalty. Therefore, by explaining the maximum sentence defendant could receive, the trial court was complying with the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a).KilbaneCuyahoga 12/6/2018 12/6/2018 2018-Ohio-4853
State v. Burkes 106412Aggravated murder; R.C. 2903.01(A); prior calculation and design; provocation; cooling off; jury instruction; voluntary manslaughter; sudden; R.C. 2903.03(A); sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight; murder; R.C. 2903.02(B); felonious assault; R.C. 2903.11(A); knowingly; Batson challenge; race neutral reasons; sentence; R.C. 2953.08(D)(3). Burkes failed to show serious provocation sufficient to warrant jury instructions on voluntary manslaughter where the evidence demonstrated a cooling off period between the alleged provocation and the commission of the crime that rendered the “sudden” element of voluntary manslaughter insufficient as a matter of law. The state presented sufficient evidence of prior calculation and design to support Burkes’s conviction for aggravated murder where Burkes expressed revenge for a prior incident with a man he knew, acquired a gun, obtained a ride to the home where he knew the victim to be staying, charged upstairs threatening the victim, called him outside, and shot and killed him. The state also presented sufficient evidence to support the knowing element of Burkes’s convictions for murder and felonious assault. Burkes’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in denying Burkes’s Batson challenge where the court engaged in the proper analysis and the state provided sufficient race neutral reasons for utilizing its peremptory challenge. Burkes’s sentence for aggravated murder is not reviewable pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3).McCormackCuyahoga 12/6/2018 12/6/2018 2018-Ohio-4854
State v. Berry 106415Statute of limitations; preindictment delay; rape; 20-year statute of limitations; ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice; R.C. 2901.13; reasonable diligence. Judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded so counsel can file a motion to dismiss the indictment. The state’s attempts to locate defendant lacked the requisite “reasonable diligence” to commence the prosecution within the 20 year limitations period when the defendant was first arrested in 1995 for the offense, but the victim chose not to pursue the case and then the defendant was indicted one week prior to the 20 years after the investigator reopened the case based on a CODIS hit (on another male) from the victim’s rape kit. The summons was returned via FedEx for a “bad address” and the case was stagnant for nearly two years until the defendant was arrested. Consequently, nearly 22 years passed since the incident in January 1995. During the state’s investigation in 2014, the investigator was aware that the defendant was making child support payments, but he did not seek out defendant’s contact information through the county agency.KilbaneCuyahoga 12/6/2018 12/6/2018 2018-Ohio-4855
State v. Woods 106476Finding of guilt in open court; court speaks through its journal entry; firearm specification; having weapons while under disability; consecutive sentences. Court’s consecutive sentence for firearm specification, having weapons while under disability, community control sanctions, and violations were supported by evidence in the record and not contrary to law.BlackmonCuyahoga 12/6/2018 12/6/2018 2018-Ohio-4856
State v. Collins 106545R.C. 2152.12(B); Juv.R. 30; amenability; discretionary bindover. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant-appellant was not amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system and discretionarily binding the matter over to the general division of the common pleas court for prosecution of defendant-appellant as an adult. Defendant-appellant does not dispute the juvenile court’s finding of four of the nine factors in favor of transfer under R.C. 2152.12(D) and two of the eight factors against transfer under R.C. 2152.12(E). Defendant-appellant does argue, however, that the record supports the application of three additional factors against transfer. The record supports the juvenile court’s resolution of the statutory factors and, therefore, does not demonstrate an abuse of the juvenile court’s discretion. KilbaneCuyahoga 12/6/2018 12/6/2018 2018-Ohio-4857
State v. Mormile 106573Driving privileges, R.C. 4510.021, R.C. 2945.67. The state properly received leave to appeal the trial court’s order granting the defendant driving privileges. The trial court’s order granting the defendant driving privileges was improper because the order did not specify the times and places applicable to defendant’s limited driving privileges. Additionally, when granting the defendant driving privileges, the trial court incorrectly found that the state had no objection to the defendant’s request for driving privileges.BoyleCuyahoga 12/6/2018 12/6/2018 2018-Ohio-4858
Morequity, Inc. v. Gombita 106594Foreclosure; standing; allonge; note; mortgage; default; affidavit; personal knowledge; conditions precedent; holder; enforce; business record; hearsay; payment history; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; possession; cure; acceleration. Plaintiff met its burden under Civ.R. 56(C) of establishing its entitlement to foreclosure. Collectively, the documents incorporated into the affidavit attached to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment demonstrated (1) that plaintiff is the holder of the note and mortgage; (2) the chain of assignments and transfers; (3) that the mortgagor is in default; (4) that all conditions precedent have been satisfied, and (5) the amount of principal and interest due.GallagherCuyahoga 12/6/2018 12/6/2018 2018-Ohio-4860
State v. Taylor 106598R.C. 2967.28/postrelease control. Appellant was guilty of an unclassified felony and was therefore entitled to be informed of postrelease control at his sentencing hearing.JonesCuyahoga 12/6/2018 12/6/2018 2018-Ohio-4861
12345678910...>>