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 191 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Boggs v. Denmead 17AP-199Trial court did not err in overruling appellant's objections to magistrate's decision and granting appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.BrownFranklin 6/21/2018 6/21/2018 2018-Ohio-2408
Hillman v. Brown 17AP-836Petition for writ of procedendo rendered moot; action dismissed.BrownFranklin 6/21/2018 6/21/2018 2018-Ohio-2409
Gonzalez v. Rodriguez 17AP-136Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err by dismissing the objection to the magistrate’s refusal to make the requested findings under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) because neither requirement of the statute was met. The trial court did not err by failing to declare that the minor child had been “abandoned” under R.C. 3127.01(B)(1) or R.C. 2151.011(C) in a proceeding for allocation of custody under R.C. 3109.04. The trial court did not err by failing to allow appellant an opportunity to address her objections to the magistrate’s decision during a hearing held on those objections because the decision to hold a hearing before ruling on them was discretionary under Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d).HortonFranklin 6/21/2018 6/21/2018 2018-Ohio-2410
Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. Graf 17AP-361In a foreclosure action, the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment to mortgagee where mortgagor's affidavit did not contain admissible evidence to rebut mortgagee's evidence that it did not have a branch office within 200 mile of the mortgaged property for purposes of the face-to-face interview requirements of 24 C.F.R. 203.604. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 6/21/2018 6/21/2018 2018-Ohio-2411
State ex rel. Guilfoyle 17AP-408Evidence before the staff hearing officer did not support a finding that the claimant abandoned the workforce. Additional proceedings are necessary to determine if claimant is entitled to permanent total disability compensation.TyackFranklin 6/21/2018 6/21/2018 2018-Ohio-2412
17AP-466 and 17AP-467 In re M.H. & In re M.H.Counsel did not render ineffective assistance where counsel failed to object to evidence that may have been hearsay where there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the case would have been affected.BrunnerFranklin 6/21/2018 6/21/2018 2018-Ohio-2413
State ex rel. DeWine v. Precourt Sports Ventures L.L.C 18AP-342Trial court order that imposed an equitable tolling period on running of negotiation period under statute was not a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) or (B)(4) because appellants did not lack a remedy through appeal at a later stage in proceedings.PER CURIAMFranklin 6/21/2018 6/21/2018 2018-Ohio-2414
A.B.C. Home Care v. Molina Healthcare 17AP-582Home care agency's contract claim would be resolved without reference to an agreement between the agency and its healthcare provider. Therefore, it was not subject to the arbitration provision in the agreement. However, the agency's tort claims arose from the agreement and were therefore subject to arbitration.TyackFranklin 6/19/2018 6/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2370
Hunter v. Shield 17AP-751In a case involving the allegedly faulty application of ceramic coating on a residence, the trial court did not err in determining, based on the facts of the case, that it lacked personal jurisdiction under Civ.R. 4.3(A) and R.C. 2307.382 over an out-of-state corporate defendant who supplied the coating to the entity that contracted with the homeowners. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 6/19/2018 6/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2371
17AP-845 State v. LongAs the defendant's sentence was prescribed by law, the trial court's error in failing to allow him to allocute was harmless. The trial court's failure to inform the defendant of his appellate rights should have been challenged by a direct appeal (either timely or delayed), not by a motion for reconsideration.BrunnerFranklin 6/19/2018 6/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2372
12345678910...>>