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 158 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State ex rel. Clift v. School Emps. Retirement Sys. 17AP-561The magistrate did not err in finding that relator's time off work while receiving workers' compensation benefits did not constitute "contributing service" for the purpose of determining when relator could file her application for School Employees Retirement System of Ohio disability benefits under R.C. 3309.01(D). Objections overruled; writ of mandamus denied.Luper SchusterFranklin 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 2019-Ohio-1896
Williams v. Natl. Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People 18AP-476The trial court did not err in granting the NAACP’s motion for summary judgment on Williams’ claims of breach of contract, breach of implied-in-fact contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Additionally, the trial court erred in denying appellees’ motion for sanctions without first considering the motion. Luper SchusterFranklin 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 2019-Ohio-1897
State ex rel. Mercy Health v. Indus. Comm. 18AP-64Commission abused its discretion when it awarded TTD benefits to claimant without making a determination whether claimant abandoned the work force either by accepting the employer's oral, light duty job offer and failing to return to work as agreed or refusing the employer's oral offer of light duty work within claimant's physical capabilities. Objections sustained, writ of mandamus granted, and case remanded to the commission for further proceedings.SadlerFranklin 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 2019-Ohio-1859
Dunham v. Ervin 18AP-325Case dismissed; a dismissal without prejudice generally is not a final appealable order, so long as the claims dismissed can be refiled.KlattFranklin 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 2019-Ohio-1860
Jabr v. Consumer Cellular, Inc. 18AP-573The trial court did not err in granting appellee's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss because the complaint did not set forth a cognizable claim against appellee.McGrathFranklin 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 2019-Ohio-1861
State v. Huber 18AP-668In a bench trial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting surveillance video from the pawn shop where appellant and her accomplice sold stolen eyeglass frames because the investigating officer authenticated the videotape by testifying the videotape produced at trial was the same videotape he viewed at the pawn shop during his investigation, and the videotape accurately portrayed the events that occurred at the pawn shop on the night in question. Appellant's conviction of receiving stolen property was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 2019-Ohio-1862
In re C.J. 18AP-862Appeal dismissed due to the lack of a final appealable order.BrownFranklin 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 2019-Ohio-1863
C.L. v. T.B. 18AP-887The trial court’s denial of a petition for a civil protective order is affirmed. Without a transcript of proceedings, the validity of the trial court’s judgment is presumed.Per CuriamFranklin 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 2019-Ohio-1864
Davis v. Hollins 17AP-716Motion for reconsideration granted to make clear that plaintiffs seeking to establish liability for failure of business owners to warn or protect business invitees against criminal acts by third parties must demonstrate, among other elements, that the “specific harm at issue” was foreseeable. On reconsideration, the trial court is found to have erred by granting summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of foreseeability. In the particular setting of this case, reasonable minds could conclude that the totality of the circumstances were “somewhat overwhelming” that the property owner and manager knew or should have known of a substantial risk of violent, criminal physical harm to people in the parking lot. Knowledge that shopping center customers would become victims of violence in the parking lot satisfies the requisite level of specificity in this case involving a parking lot altercation said to have escalated into a driver running down two people, killing one and injuring the other.NelsonFranklin 5/9/2019 5/9/2019 2019-Ohio-1789
Dublin v. RiverPark Group, L.L.C. 18AP-607Trial court did not err in denying appellants' motion for leave to amend its answer in order to challenge appellee's right to a quick-take appropriation of appellants' real property because R.C. 163.08 prohibits a property owner from denying a public agency's right to the appropriation and the necessity for the appropriation where the purpose of the appropriation is making or repairing roads. Appellants' proper remedy was a separate civil action to enjoin the alleged illegal and unconstitutional appropriation. After appellee acquired title to the easements and appellants were paid compensation as awarded by the jury, appellants were precluded from challenging appellee's right to the appropriation on appeal. For the same reason, the trial court did not err when it permitted co-appellants to be joined as a party-in-interest for purposes of collecting a share of the jury award of compensation but did not permit co-appellants to intervene as a defendant and file an answer to the petition for appropriation. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 5/9/2019 5/9/2019 2019-Ohio-1790