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 799 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Springer 104649Felony murder, manifest weight, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, court costs. Appellant's conviction for felony murder was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to object to law enforcement testimony generalizing the effects of time and alcohol on a witnesses memory. The state did not commit prosecutorial misconduct by commenting in closing argument that the deceased victim was unable to tell her story. Appellant's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to move for a waiver of court costs after the trial court had already made a finding that appellant was indigent.GallagherCuyahoga 12/7/2017 12/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8861
State v. Daver 104745 & 105144Motion to withdraw guilty pleas; Crim.R. 32.1; manifest injustice; abuse of discretion; Crim.R. 11(C); knowing, intelligent and voluntary guilty plea; nature of the charges; effect of guilty plea; duress; substantial compliance; totality of the circumstances; partial compliance; ineffective assistance of counsel; defense counsel's inaccurate prediction of sentence; misinformation regarding judicial release; failure to prepare for trial. Trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Under the totality of the circumstances, including the limited time period in which defendant was given to consider the state's plea offers, the incomplete information defendant received regarding judicial release, the defendant's lack of a full and complete understanding of the offenses to which he would be pleading guilty and the effect and consequences of his guilty pleas, defense counsel's admission that he was not prepared to try the case if defendant rejected the state's plea offers and defendant's testimony that, but for this confluence of events, he would not have entered his guilty pleas, defendant did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enter his guilty pleas and withdrawal of his guilty pleas was necessary to correct manifest injustice.GallagherCuyahoga 12/7/2017 12/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8862
Meinert Plumbing v. Warner Industries, Inc. 104817Belvedere Test, pierce corporate veil, breach of contract, joint venture, third-party beneficiaries, incidental beneficiaries, Ohio Business Opportunity Plan Act, R.C. Chapter 1334. This case involves a commercial business arrangement evidenced by written contracts between multiple parties for the sale of goods and provision of related services. The trial court properly granted summary judgment denying breach of contract and violation of the Ohio Business Opportunity Plan Act, R.C. Chapter 1334. There are no written contracts between appellants and appellees. Existing contracts specifically state that all parties are independent contractors. The record does not demonstrate an intent by appellees to enter into a joint venture with any of the contracting parties. Appellants failed to pierce the corporate veil by establishing that appellees had no separate mind, will, or existence per Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos., 67 Ohio St. 3d 274, 617 N.E.2d 1075 (1993). At best, appellants were incidental beneficiaries of the commercial agreements. Appellees and appellants did not qualify as "sellers" and "purchasers" and no "business opportunity plan" existed between the parties under R.C. 1334.01 of the Ohio Business Opportunity Plan Act, R.C. Chapter 1334.Laster MaysCuyahoga 12/7/2017 12/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8863
State v. Carter 104874Sufficiency of evidence, manifest weight of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, admission of text message evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel. The evidence presented at trial against the appellant was sufficient and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The prosecutor's statements during opening and closing arguments did not demonstrate that the prosecutor committed misconduct. Appellant's defense counsel was not deficient because all actions were considered permissible, and appellant was not prejudiced or denied a fair trial due to counsel's actions and decisions. The text messages from the victim were admissible because they were not being entered into evidence for the truth of the matter asserted.Laster MaysCuyahoga 12/7/2017 12/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8864
State v. Riedel 104929Suppression; consent; written; residence; competent; credible; coercion; Miranda; arrest; marijuana; cultivation; domestic violence; reside; cohabitation; sufficient; manifest weight; circumstantial; ineffective; assistance; prejudice; objection; jury instruction; harmless error. The trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence. There was competent, credible evidence presented at the suppression hearing to show that defendant freely and voluntarily consented to the search when he signed the consent to search form. Defendant's domestic violence and illegal cultivation of marijuana convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's defective jury instruction on the elements of domestic violence constituted harmless error. As such, defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the trial court's instruction on the elements of domestic violence.GallagherCuyahoga 12/7/2017 12/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8865
State v. Mock 105060R.C. 2953.08; contrary to law; R.C. 2929.14; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; clerical error; Crim.R. 36; nunc pro tunc entry. Appellant's sentence is not contrary to law. The trial court's sentencing journal entry does not accurately reflect the sentence imposed in open court. Thus, the matter is remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 12/7/2017 12/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8866
State v. Edwards 105163Motion to suppress; anonymous tip; corroboration of information; probable cause. Where appellant's codefendant confirmed the police officers' suspicion of marijuana use, corroboration of the anonymous tipster's information was not necessary. The police officers had probable cause to search the vehicle. The trial court erred in granting appellant's motion to suppress.JonesCuyahoga 12/7/2017 12/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8867
State v. Alim 105164Motion to suppress; Fourth Amendment; consensual encounter; probable cause; anonymous tip. The trial court erred when it granted defendant's motion to suppress based on the fact that police failed to corroborate an anonymous tip. When police originally approached the defendant in his vehicle, the encounter was consensual. Once the officer reached the defendant's vehicle, however, he immediately smelled marijuana, which then gave rise to probable cause to search.BoyleCuyahoga 12/7/2017 12/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8868
State v. Bybee 105165Sufficiency of the Evidence; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Aggravated Robbery. Defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery and other offenses were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.BlackmonCuyahoga 12/7/2017 12/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8869
State v. English 105237Crim.R. 33/motion for a new trial; newly discovered evidence. Appellant failed to establish any newly discovered evidence. The evidence presented here was presented in appellant's direct appeal. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for a new trial.JonesCuyahoga 12/7/2017 12/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8870
12345678910...>>