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 71 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Vasquez C-160784, C-160785, C-160786, C-160787AUTOS/CRIMINAL - OVI - ARREST - PROBABLE CAUSE - BREATH TEST: The trial court erred when it imposed upon the state at a suppression hearing the burden of establishing probable cause to arrest for drunk driving, an offense that involved the operation of a vehicle, when it was undisputed that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for having physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The trial court erred when it suppressed breath-test results in a drunk-driving case for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, despite the state's failure at the suppression hearing to demonstrate that the sample had been collected within three hours of the alleged violation, as contemplated by R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b), because the three-hour rule of R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b) is not applied in an "exclusionary manner" in drunk-driving cases involving the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, only in per se drunk-driving cases.CunninghamHamilton 8/18/2017 8/18/2017 2017-Ohio-7255
Smith v. SOCI Petroleum, Inc. C-160477WORKERS' COMPENSATION: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the appellant employer's motion to dismiss the employee claimant's workers' compensation claim where the properly-served claimant failed to appear, failed to file his R.C. 4123.512(D) petition, failed to oppose the employer's motion to dismiss, and failed to attend any motion hearing or case-management conference.MillerHamilton 8/16/2017 8/16/2017 2017-Ohio-7224
State v. Robertson C-160681NEW TRIAL-NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the newly discovered evidence did more than merely impeach or contradict the evidence presented at trial; and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the newly discovered evidence disclosed a strong probability that it would change the result if a new trial was granted. The trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial on charges remotely related to the newly discovered evidence: the evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly tied the defendant to those crimes; therefore, the newly discovered evidence did not disclose a strong probability of a different outcome if a new trial on those charges was granted.MillerHamilton 8/16/2017 8/16/2017 2017-Ohio-7225
Rural Bldg. of Cincinnati L.L.C. v. Mercer C-160760IMMUNITY: The trial court erred in denying summary judgment to a village's chief building official and to the mayor's assistant on the basis of Ohio's Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, R.C. 2744.03(A)(6), in a lawsuit brought by a property owner related to a denial of the property owner's zoning request: the undisputed evidence showed that the village's chief building official was an "appointed official" under R.C. 2744.01(B), and therefore qualified as an employee of a political subdivision, regardless of whether the official might have also met the definition of an independent contractor; the evidence showed that the chief building official did not act recklessly in denying the property's owner's zoning request; and the evidence showed that the mayor's assistant did not act recklessly in dealing with community members in advance of the public hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals.DetersHamilton 8/16/2017 8/16/2017 2017-Ohio-7226
State v. Howell C-160679, C-160680AUTOS/CRIMINAL - JURY WAIVER - JURISDICTION - R.C. 2945.05: The trial court was without jurisdiction to conduct a bench trial for the misdemeanor offense of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol where defendant had timely filed a written jury demand and had not executed a written waiver of the jury demand. Defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the unclassified misdemeanor offense of driving under a financial responsibility act suspension, because the offense did not subject defendant to a term of imprisonment or a fine greater than one thousand dollars.MyersHamilton 8/11/2017 8/11/2017 2017-Ohio-7182
Wright v. Mirza C-160734SERVICE: The trial court correctly entered summary judgment dismissing claims against defendant doctor where plaintiffs had failed to perfect service on him within a year after filing the complaint: plaintiffs' attempts at service at two different business addresses were not reasonably calculated to reach defendant where defendant had not maintained a business office at one of the addresses for over a year and defendant had never had a business office at the other. Defendant was not equitably estopped from asserting lack of sufficiency of service of process where defendant did not induce plaintiffs to believe that his business addresses were correct, defendant raised lack of sufficiency of service of process in his answer ten months before the service deadline, plaintiffs had notice that service at the business addresses had been unsuccessful, and defendant had lived at the same residential address for 29 years and there was no indication that he had tried to conceal this address from plaintiffs.MillerHamilton 8/11/2017 8/11/2017 2017-Ohio-7183
In re C.L. C-170169CHILDREN - CUSTODY: Because all of the R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) factors were met, and therefore, an award of permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was in the child's best interest, the court was not required to weigh the R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) factors. Mother did not explicitly contest the trial court's findings regarding the four R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) factors, which were supported by competent credible evidence where the parents had been inconsistent in their visitation, they had failed to fully participate in the recommended services, concerns regarding domestic violence were still present, and the parents continued to lack the insight that their circumstances needed to change.ZayasHamilton 8/11/2017 8/11/2017 2017-Ohio-7184
State v. Corcoran C-160627CRIM.R. 11 - R.C. 2941.25 - SENTENCING: The trial court's failure at the plea hearing to inform the defendant that she was ineligible for community control as required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) did not amount to prejudicial error where the trial court informed the defendant of the maximum penalties for the offenses, including ten years to life in prison for the more serious first-degree rape charges, and the plea form that the defendant initialed and signed indicated that five of the counts carried mandatory prison terms. The defendant's convictions for child endangering under R.C. 2919.22(B)(2), corrupting another with drugs, and complicity to rape were not allied offenses of similar import subject to merger under R.C. 2941.25, even though the bill of particulars stated that the child-endangering offense was based upon the repeated sexual assault of the defendant's child by a codefendant, because the material provided to the trial court at sentencing demonstrated that the offenses were committed separately: the defendant's actions in facilitating the sexual assault of her child extended beyond the multiple rape offenses, and included instances of masturbation, and other touching, as well as videotaping and photographing assaults, which demonstrate torture or cruel abuse of the victim as those terms are used in the child-endangering statute, even without the defendant's conduct in permitting her codefendant to rape her child.DetersHamilton 8/4/2017 8/4/2017 2017-Ohio-7084
State v. Elahee C-160640ATTEMPT - THEFT - SUBSTANTIAL STEP - EVIDENCE: The trial court did not err in finding the defendant guilty of attempted theft: defendant's solicitation of another to open a bank account, hiring a driver to take them to the bank, instructing the other person about how to open an account and obtain starter checks for defendant to cash, and intention to write checks for at least $200 while knowing that the account would not contain that much constituted a substantial step toward committing a theft offense and demonstrated defendant's purpose to commit a theft offense.ZayasHamilton 8/4/2017 8/4/2017 2017-Ohio-7085
State v. Wyche C-160678APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL - CRIM.R. 32(C) - FINAL ORDER - JURISDICTION: In a criminal case, a final appealable order exists when the judgment of conviction satisfies Crim.R. 32(C) and contains (1) the fact of conviction; (2) the sentence; (3) the judge's signature; and (4) the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk. Since only one entry can constitute the final order in a criminal case, multiple entries upon a trial court's journal cannot be read together to satisfy the requirements of Crim.R. 32(C); when the appellant appeals from an entry that fails to comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 32(C), the appellate court must dismiss the appeal. The appellate court reviewing a direct appeal is limited to the record of the proceedings at trial, and, in accordance with App.R. 9(A)(1), that record is composed of "[t]he original papers and exhibits thereto filed in the trial court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, including exhibits, and a certified copy of the docket and journal entries prepared by the clerk of the trial court." Parties to an appeal may not attempt to add documents to the record certified for review by attaching them to their briefs. Parties to an appeal may not, by stipulation or agreement, confer subject-matter jurisdiction on an appellate court, where subject-matter jurisdiction is otherwise lacking.CunninghamHamilton 8/2/2017 8/2/2017 2017-Ohio-7041
12345678