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 163 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Boyd 2018-CA-68Appellant fails to show that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking to suppress evidence of the one-man show-up identification conducted by police. The evidence in the record supports a conclusion that the identification was reliable and that counsel’s decision not to seek suppression did not prejudice appellant. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by ordering appellant to serve consecutive sentences or by imposing a third consecutive 3-year sentence for a firearm-specification. Judgment affirmed.HallClark 5/17/2019 5/17/2019 2019-Ohio-1902
State v. Davis 2018-CA-49Defendant’s guilty plea to burglary was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the elements of the offense articulated by the State at defendant’s plea hearing did not constitute the offense of burglary, and the trial court also failed to advise defendant he was admitting all elements of the offense as required by Crim.R. 11. Defendant’s assignment of error related to the imposition of consecutive sentences is moot given the reversal of his burglary conviction, and the trial court did not err in imposing the maximum sentence for receiving stolen property. Judgment affirmed as to receiving stolen property conviction, reversed as to burglary conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. (Welbaum, P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.)FroelichClark 5/17/2019 5/17/2019 2019-Ohio-1904
State v. Stansel 2018-CA-76Defendant-appellant’s conviction for felonious assault (serious physical harm) was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 5/17/2019 5/17/2019 2019-Ohio-1906
Badders v. Century Ins. Co. 28170After being asked to leave the premises, an intoxicated patron drove his vehicle into and through a tavern owned by appellant. The incident caused injury to another customer, and the injured customer filed a cause of action against appellant. Appellant maintained a commercial insurance policy with appellee, but appellee, citing two policy provisions, denied appellant representation and indemnification. Based upon the incident at issue, the “Assault or Battery” endorsement contained in the policy unambiguously excluded appellee’s duty to defend or indemnify appellant regarding the injured patron’s claims. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., dissenting.)TuckerMontgomery 5/17/2019 5/17/2019 2019-Ohio-1900
State v. Beasley 28016In a bench trial, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay evidence, testimonial in nature, regarding Beasley’s commission of domestic violence. Even without the hearsay evidence, however, Beasley’s conviction for domestic violence was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Beasley’s convictions for unlawful restraint, obstructing official business, and endangering children were also supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 5/17/2019 5/17/2019 2019-Ohio-1901
Centerville v. Knab 28081Appellant’s conviction for one count of making a false report to a law enforcement agency and one count of improper use of a 9-1-1 system was supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court, however, erred in ordering appellant to pay restitution to the Centerville Police Department, since a law enforcement agency is not a “victim” to whom restitution may ordered under R.C. 2929.28(A)(1). The trial court also erred when it sentenced appellant for improper use of a 9 1 1 system, as the sentence imposed for that offense exceeds the authorized maximum jail term and fine available for a fourth-degree misdemeanor. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing on improper use of a 9-1-1 system.WelbaumMontgomery 5/17/2019 5/17/2019 2019-Ohio-1903
Kingston of Miamisburg, L.L.C. v. Jeffery 28087The trial court erred by granting defendant-appellee summary judgment on plaintiff-appellant’s R.C. 1336.05(A) fraudulent transfer claim and its claim for unjust enrichment/constructive trust. Judgment reversed and remanded.TuckerMontgomery 5/17/2019 5/17/2019 2019-Ohio-1905
State v. Allen 28078The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant’s motion to suppress a handgun found when police executed a warrantless search of an apartment he shared with his mother. The evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the appellant’s mother voluntarily consented to the search. The State presented legally sufficient evidence to prove the “possession” element of having a weapon while under disability. Statements by the appellant’s mother in jail telephone calls with him were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and were not material to his guilt or innocence. Therefore, the statements were not hearsay or prejudicial, and no Confrontation Clause violation occurred at trial. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 5/10/2019 5/10/2019 2019-Ohio-1797
State v. Caserta 28300Appellant’s sentence is contrary to law because the trial court imposed both a prison term and a community control sanction in the form of a no contact order for his felonious assault offense. Judgment modified to vacate the no contact order. Judgment affirmed as modified.WelbaumMontgomery 5/10/2019 5/10/2019 2019-Ohio-1798
Gibson v. Gibson 28171The trial court did not err in reducing appellee’s spousal support obligation due to a change in circumstances or in failing to enforce a suspended sentence for contempt for failure to pay spousal support. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 5/10/2019 5/10/2019 2019-Ohio-1799
12345678910...>>