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 68 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Fisk 27874The State presented legally sufficient evidence to sustain the appellant’s conviction for unauthorized entry upon a nuisance premises. The State presented evidence that the appellant entered a residence that had been posted with warning signs declaring it a nuisance and ordering people to stay out absent proper written permission to enter. The State’s evidence established that the appellant entered the house with knowledge of the signs and without written permission. The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant’s request for a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of “necessity.” The trial court did not err in accepting a jury verdict rendered after approximately 28 minutes of deliberation. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 2/22/2019 2/22/2019 2019-Ohio-640
Gerken v. Barber 2018-CA-65Appellants were prejudiced by the magistrate’s failure to comply with the requirements of Civ.R. 53(D)(3) by providing notice of the time period for filing objections and notice that failure to file objections waived arguments on appeal. The judgment of the trial court adopting the magistrate’s decision is reversed and remanded to the trial court so that the magistrate can prepare and file a decision that comports with the requirements of the rule and so that the appellants may have the opportunity to file objections.DonovanClark 2/22/2019 2/22/2019 2019-Ohio-641
State v. Gilbreath 2018-CA-91Pursuant to R.C. 2929.12(D)(2) and (3), the trial court was permitted to consider defendant’s extensive juvenile record and apparent lack of rehabilitation when it imposed the maximum sentence for a conviction for a felony of the second degree. The Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94, 2016-Ohio-5504, 73 N.E.3d 448, does not bar the trial court from considering a defendant’s juvenile record when imposing a sentence within the applicable statutory range. The sentence imposed by the trial court is not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 2/22/2019 2/22/2019 2019-Ohio-642
State v. Harwell 28104Trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was untimely, and defendant did not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing the motion for a new trial or discovering new evidence within the time period provided by Crim.R. 33(B). Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 2/22/2019 2/22/2019 2019-Ohio-643
In re B.R. 28182Mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights and the grant of permanent custody of her nine-year-old son to the county children services agency. Juvenile court did not err in failing to deny the agency’s motion for permanent custody as untimely. Juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody to the agency was not contrary to R.C. 2151.414, the best interest of the child, or the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 2/22/2019 2/22/2019 2019-Ohio-644
In re S.H.O. 28072The juvenile court had subject matter jurisdiction over the issue of Appellant’s child support obligation. Further, Appellant, by his substantive participation in the proceedings regarding child support, waived any challenge to the juvenile court’s personal jurisdiction over him. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 2/22/2019 2/22/2019 2019-Ohio-645
State v. Marshall 28131Anders appeal. The record reveals no non-frivolous issues for appellate review. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C) before accepting the appellant’s no-contest plea and finding him guilty. The appellant’s 12-month prison sentence is not contrary to law, and the record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the sentence. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 2/22/2019 2/22/2019 2019-Ohio-646
Dept. of Taxation 2018-CA-18Appellant obtained a judgment against the Appellee for unpaid sales taxes. Appellant thereafter initiated post-judgment discovery under Civ.R. 69 to aid in collection of the judgment. Appellee failed to respond to the discovery, prompting Appellant to file a motion to compel in the trial court. The trial court overruled the motion, concluding that Appellant, before engaging in Civ.R. 69-sanctioned discovery, had to obtain an order in aid of execution under R.C. 2333.09. R.C. 2333.09 allows, but does not require, a judgment creditor to obtain an order in aid of execution before engaging in Civ.R. 69 post-judgment discovery. Thus, the trial court erred when it overruled Appellant’s motion to compel. Judgment reversed and remanded.TuckerMiami 2/22/2019 2/22/2019 2019-Ohio-647
State v. Moore 27973The trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of cocaine found in his car during a police search after a stop for a minor traffic violation. Safety concerns raised by factors including defendant’s unexplained wearing of a mask that concealed most of his face justified a police officer’s pat down and detention of defendant, and the trial court did not err in concluding that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his car. Consent given after invocation of Miranda rights is valid if voluntary. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 2/22/2019 2/22/2019 2019-Ohio-648
State v. Sowers 2018-CA-58Appellant’s actions in assaulting the victim, stopping the assault to compel her to shower, and then laying on top of her on the sofa and not letting her leave the residence were separate and identifiable acts committed with a separate animus. Thus, the trial court did not err when it refused to merge appellant’s convictions for felonious assault and kidnapping. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 2/22/2019 2/22/2019 2019-Ohio-649