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
To search on full text click here
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 37 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Walker-Curry 106228Police officer’s testimony; defendant’s truthfulness; harmless error; motion for mistrial. Defendant’s convictions for aggravated murder and conspiracy affirmed. Error in admitting police officer’s testimony regarding defendant being deceitful deemed harmless, because of substantial evidence of guilt. Defendant failed to show that a fair trial was impossible; therefore, court did not err by denying motion for mistrial.BlackmonCuyahoga 1/17/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-147
State v. Kilbane 106753Domestic violence; self-defense; nondeadly force; manifest weight of the evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel. Trial court applied correct standard for establishing claim of self-defense where the defendant used nondeadly force. Defendant’s domestic violence conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where evidence showed that the defendant created the situation that gave rise to the affray. Trial counsel was not ineffective even though he erroneously suggested that the defendant might have a duty to retreat where there was no evidence that the trial court applied the wrong standard for determining a claim of self-defense and the evidence showed that the defendant created the situation that gave rise to the fight.GallagherCuyahoga 1/17/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-148
State v. Salti 106834Sever multiple counts; Crim.R. 8(A); Crim.R. 14; Evid.R. 404(B); modus operandi; “other acts” evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel; relevant evidence; unfair prejudice; probative value; hearsay; voir dire; cumulative error; sufficient evidence; manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court’s failure to sever multiple counts against eight victims was not plain error where the evidence related to the counts was simple and direct, and the evidence related to the separate counts would have been admissible at the different trials if the counts had been tried separately. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek a severance of multiple counts, objecting to evidence or making a more substantial argument in support of a motion for acquittal where the outcome of the trial would not have changed even if counsel had done these things. Since the only error identified on appeal related to a harmless error, the cumulative error doctrine was inapplicable. Four counts of extortion relative to four victims were not supported by sufficient evidence where there was no evidence that the defendant threatened to expose material that would subject the victims to ridicule, hatred, contempt, or loss of reputation to induce them to commit an unlawful act. There was also insufficient evidence of a furthermore finding that a victim was under 18 years old at the time of a kidnapping offense. The remaining convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and by the manifest weight of the evidence.GallagherCuyahoga 1/17/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-149
State v. Wilson 106862Sentencing; purposes and principles of felony sentencing; seriousness and recidivism factors; liens; paper terrorism. Thirty-month sentence was not contrary to law and was supported by the record where the defendant’s failure to take responsibility for his action and extensive criminal record indicated he would likely reoffend.GallagherCuyahoga 1/17/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-150
State v. Neville 106885R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c); Am.Sub.H.B. No. 49; community control sanctions; violation; fifth-degree felony; 90-day maximum sentence; technical violation. The trial court’s judgment sentencing defendant to 12 months in prison for violating the terms of her community control sanctions is affirmed. Defendant failed to report to the probation department after she was sentenced. Defendant’s failure to report to the probation department was not a technical violation under the recently enacted R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c). Thus, the trial court was not limited to sentencing defendant to 90 days in prison as required under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) when a defendant commits a technical violation of his or her community control sanctions. BoyleCuyahoga 1/17/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-151
State v. Stanko 106886R.C. 2929.15; fourth-degree felony; technical violation of community control sanction. Following defendant’s conviction for fourth-degree felony, trial court erred in imposing 30-month sentence for her violations of community control that were based upon “technical violations.” Under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii), a maximum sentence of 180 days of imprisonment could be imposed.BlackmonCuyahoga 1/17/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-152
State v. Catron-Wagner 106887R.C. 2929.15(B)/penalties for violation of community control sanctions; technical violations. Appellant’s violations of her community control sanctions were technical violations and not new criminal offenses. The trial court’s 17-month sentence was contrary to law.JonesCuyahoga 1/17/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-153
State v. Smith 106893Sentence; contrary to law; void; authority; R.C. 2953.08; aggravated murder; R.C. 2929.03(A); statutory language; legislative intent; parole; eligible; indefinite sentence. Because the trial court imposed a sentence that does not comport with the statutory language set forth in R.C. 2929.03(A), the trial court exceeded its authority in sentencing.GallagherCuyahoga 1/17/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-155
Jochum v. Listati 106957Summary judgment; breach of legal services agreement; Civ.R. 56(C); conclusory affidavit. Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of law firm on its counterclaim against former client for unpaid legal fees and expenses. Law firm met its burden under Civ.R. 56(C), presenting evidence of specific facts in the record demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment on its counterclaim. However, client did not meet her reciprocal burden of pointing to evidence of specific facts in the record demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial, as required to defeat summary judgment. General, conclusory statements in client’s affidavit, unsupported by specific facts or corroborating evidence, did not create a genuine issue of fact as to whether law firm billed client for services client claimed she did not want or need or which were not actually provided.GallagherCuyahoga 1/17/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-166
Gridiron v. Cleveland Clinic Found. 107009Left wrist; sprain; tear; effusion; expert; opinion; report; workers’ compensation; condition; causation; abuse of discretion; surprise; ambush; supplement; sanction; motion in limine. This case does not present the type of unfair surprise or trial by ambush envisioned under Civ.R. 26(E) and Loc.R. 21.1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the defense expert to testify regarding the conditions alleged in plaintiff’s Ohio Workers’ Compensation claim.GallagherCuyahoga 1/17/2019 1/18/2019 2019-Ohio-167