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 176 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Wood Elec., Inc. v. Ohio Facilities Contr. Comm. 16AP-643Stare decisis and our prior decision in J&H Reinforcing & Structural Erectors, Inc. v. Ohio School Facilities Comm., No. 12AP-588, 2013-Ohio-3827,  100-06, compel the conclusion that the factors set forth Complete Gen. Constr. Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 94 Ohio St.3d 54, 58-59 (2002), do not apply to cases in which the Eichleay formula is not used.BrunnerFranklin 5/18/2017 5/19/2017 2017-Ohio-2743
Whitehall v. Olander 15AP-1030Trial court did not err in disqualifying attorney from representing interests of entity in underlying receivership proceeding.BrownFranklin 5/18/2017 5/18/2017 2017-Ohio-2869
Smith v. Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. 16AP-528Common pleas court decision affirming resolution that terminated public school teacher's employment contract affirmed; trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that teacher improperly asserted herself into a situation that was being handled by two others or by refusing to apply R.C. 3319.41(C) because there was no threat to others for the teacher to quell.KlattFranklin 5/18/2017 5/18/2017 2017-Ohio-2870
State v. Russell 16AP-542Trial court did not err in denying appellant's successive petition for post-conviction relief.BrownFranklin 5/18/2017 5/18/2017 2017-Ohio-2871
Vossman v. AirNet Sys., Inc. 16AP-739Trial court did not err when it granted appellees' motion for costs.BrownFranklin 5/18/2017 5/18/2017 2017-Ohio-2872
State v. C.H. 16AP-831Criminal defendant did not pay full restitution order. Therefore expungement was not permissible per State v. Aguirre, 144 Ohio St.3d 179.TyackFranklin 5/18/2017 5/18/2017 2017-Ohio-2873
Buchanan v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 16AP-840No final appealable order has been journalized, therefore this appeal is dismissed.TyackFranklin 5/18/2017 5/18/2017 2017-Ohio-2874
State v. Churchill 16AP-763, 16AP-764Appellant did not demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for additional jail-time credit where the parties had stipulated to jail-time credit and appellant's allegations of mathematical error and consecutive sentencing were unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 5/18/2017 5/18/2017 2017-Ohio-2875
Huntington Natl. Bank v. Bywood Inc. 16AP-358The trial court lacked jurisdiction to deem discovery requests admitted during the pendency of an appeal of the entry denying objections to and a motion to strike those requests. The trial court did not have the authority under Ohio law to execute and deliver a replacement stock certificate after the original stock certificate was lost.KlattFranklin 5/16/2017 5/16/2017 2017-Ohio-2829
State ex rel. Showman v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio 16AP-202Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's decision, this court adopts the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Writ of mandamus denied.Luper SchusterFranklin 5/11/2017 5/11/2017 2017-Ohio-2768
12345678910...>>