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 50 rows. Rows per page: 
12345
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re R.T. 17AP-288Appellant appealed from judgment committing appellant to the Franklin County Alcohol, Drug Abuse , and Mental Health Board for a period not to exceed 90 days and on order authorizing the forced administration of psychotropic medication. This Court recognized the action was not moot. Further, this Court affirmed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas judgment finding the record contained clear and convincing evidence to support the judgment.BrunnerFranklin 2/21/2019 2/21/2019 2019-Ohio-618
Jones v. Carpenter 17AP-401Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err when it determined that defendants-appellants were not the prevailing parties because both parties were in breach of contract. Competent and credible evidence supported the trial court’s determination of damages in favor of plaintiffs-cross appellants. The trial court’s determination that defendants-appellants did not prove that they were entitled to advertising costs was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in dismissing or failing that plaintiffs-cross appellants failed to prove their claims of unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The damages calculation in favor of the independent contractor work was not in error. Plaintiffs-cross appellants’ assertion of error in the trial court’s damages award for independent contractor services was not presented to the trial court and may not be heard for the first time on appeal. All assignments of error and cross assignments of error are overruled and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.HortonFranklin 2/21/2019 2/21/2019 2019-Ohio-619
Love v. Columbus 17AP-696Material issue of fact existed as to whether appellant established a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge. Decision on summary judgment reversed and cause remanded.BrunnerFranklin 2/21/2019 2/21/2019 2019-Ohio-620
Kraft v. OMCO Building, L.L.C. 17AP-743De novo review of summary judgment in favor of defendant appellee property owner and defendant appellee architect affirmed when record shows no genuine issues of material fact, including request for admissions deemed admitted, based on failure to timely response to discovery, and viewing admissible evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party.BrunnerFranklin 2/21/2019 2/21/2019 2019-Ohio-621
State ex rel. Marsh v. Serrott 17AP-857Writ denied; complaint dismissed. The magistrate noted that relator is not entitled to a writ of procedendo in this case for two reasons. First, his complaint seeks to compel the trial court to reach a desired outcome in the case, rather than merely proceed with the matter. Second, relator has subsequently obtained the desired outcome in trial court proceedings and a writ is unnecessary. In the absence of objections, and following our independent review of the matter, we find that the magistrate has properly determined the facts and applied the appropriate law.HortonFranklin 2/21/2019 2/21/2019 2019-Ohio-622
Campbell v. 1 Spring, L.L.C. 18AP-94Trial court applied incorrect legal standard in determining that contract was not ambiguous because it appeared to have relied on extrinsic evidence beyond the four corners of the contract in assessing whether the terms were ambiguous. Decision reversed and remanded for application of correct standard of law.DorrianFranklin 2/21/2019 2/21/2019 2019-Ohio-623
McCormick v. Lu 18AP-284Pro se appellants’ brief failed to comply substantially with the rules of this Court or the Ohio Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure and failed to set forth intelligible arguments explaining how the trial court may have erred. Appeal sua sponte dismissed.BrunnerFranklin 2/21/2019 2/21/2019 2019-Ohio-624
State ex rel. Stultz v. Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. 17AP-656Because the amount of back pay recoverable has not been established with certainty, Stultz is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus.SchusterFranklin 2/19/2019 2/19/2019 2019-Ohio-599
State ex rel. Anderson v. Sheeran 18AP-613Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is sua sponte dismissed for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25. Respondent’s motion to dismiss held moot, and relator ordered to pay costs.BrunnerFranklin 2/19/2019 2/19/2019 2019-Ohio-600
Dearth v. Columbus 17AP-346De novo review of summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee municipal corporation affirmed when record shows that municipal corporation’s employees exercised discretion for which R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) confers immunity.BrunnerFranklin 2/14/2019 2/15/2019 2019-Ohio-556
12345