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 273 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Koehler v. Koehler CA2017-12-016, CA2017-12-017A mother and father separately appeal from the decisions of the domestic relations court which found the father in contempt for denying the mother her court-ordered parenting time with the children. The court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the father was not in contempt of court when he initially denied mother her parenting time based on his reasonable concern, at the time, for the children's safety. However, the father merited a contempt finding when he continued to deny the mother her parenting time after the children's guardian ad litem and a psychologist recommended the mother's parenting time be resumed.PiperBrown 12/10/2018 12/10/2018 2018-Ohio-4933
Batty v. Batty CA2017-10-151Trial court's failure to rule on father's objections to 18 of magistrate's findings of fact was error. Trial court's order requiring father to forward "all emails and texts received from all sources that relate to the child" is vague and overbroad and lacks the specificity required for the parties to adequately determine their rights and obligations.M. PowellButler 12/10/2018 12/10/2018 2018-Ohio-4934
Davis v. Davis CA2018-01-018Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Husband's petition to modify spousal support where the trial court fully considered the relevant factor.RinglandButler 12/10/2018 12/10/2018 2018-Ohio-4935
State v. Gray CA2018-04-066The trial court did not err in sentencing appellant to eight years in prison where the sentence was not contrary to law and was fully supported by the record.PiperButler 12/10/2018 12/10/2018 2018-Ohio-4936
In re Guardianship of Chieu CA2018-05-112The probate court held proper jurisdiction, both subject matter and personal, where appellant established a legal settlement in Butler County and the probate court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to appoint guardians per R.C. 2101.24(A)(e).PiperButler 12/10/2018 12/10/2018 2018-Ohio-4937
Delgado v. Delgado CA2018-03-007Trial court did not err in finding ex-wife cohabitated with a nonrelated male where the record contained competent, credible evidence the couple actually lived together, for a sustained duration, and shared expenses.Trial court did not err in finding ex-wife cohabitated with a nonrelated male where the record contained competent, credible evidence the couple actually lived together, for a sustained duration, and shared expenses.M. PowellClermont 12/10/2018 12/10/2018 2018-Ohio-4938
State v. Brown CA2018-05-027The trial court did not err by failing to dismiss the charges brought against appellant where appellant was brought to trial within the state's speedy trial timetable. The trial court also did not err by failing to instruct the jury on any lesser included offenses to aggravated robbery, such as theft, where the failure to request such an instruction was a matter of trial strategy to defend against the serious charges against him. The trial court's decision to sentence appellant to a six-year prison term was proper where the trial court properly considered the necessary sentencing statutes and imposed a sentence that was within the permissible statutory range commiserate with the five and eight-year prison terms the trial court imposed on appellant's two accomplices.S. PowellClermont 12/10/2018 12/10/2018 2018-Ohio-4939
State v. Lark CA2018-03-004The trial court did not err in excluding a written statement from being introduced into evidence under Evid.R. 804(D)(3), as appellant failed to demonstrate that the author of the statement was unavailable as a witness, as contemplated by Evid.R. 804(A)(5). Furthermore, appellants convictions for aggravated possession of methamphetamine, aggravated possession of fentanyl, and possession of cocaine were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.HendricksonFayette 12/10/2018 12/10/2018 2018-Ohio-4940
In re A.J. CA2018-08-014The juvenile court did not err by granting permanent custody of a child to a children's services agency where appellant had abandoned his child and the child's best interests were served by granting permanent custody to the children services agency rather than to either appellant or the child's aunt.HendricksonFayette 12/10/2018 12/10/2018 2018-Ohio-4941
State v. Reynolds CA2018-02-005Appellant's guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily where record reveals that the trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and substantially complied with the nonconstitutional notifications required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b).RinglandMadison 12/10/2018 12/10/2018 2018-Ohio-4942