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

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

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:   What is Year Decided?
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 211 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Dickson & Campbell, L.L.C. v. Marshall 104133Summary judgment; lawyer-client contracts; fraud; theft; conversion; embezzlement. Appellee failed to provide evidence that appellant made a representation to appellee to establish that fraud was committed on appellee. Appellant failed to present any evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact to overcome appellee's motion for summary judgment on appellee's claims of theft, conversion and embezzlement. The trial court erred where it awarded damages to appellee without conducting a hearing where appellant could have been heard on the issue.JonesCuyahoga 3/23/2017 3/23/2017 2017-Ohio-1032
Hubbard v. Charter One Bank 104146Summary judgment; default judgment; Consumer Sales Practices Act; R.C. Chapter 1345; fraud; negligence; breach of fiduciary duty; agency; respondeat superior; credit repair services; financial institution; service; Civ.R. 4; failure to serve within one year; statute of limitations; waiver of defenses; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); pleading; Civ.R. 56(C) compliant evidence; deposition testimony. The court incorrectly ruled that the statute of limitations precluded suit when that defense was waived when not presented in an answer or other pleading as directed by Civ.R. 8(C). However, a financial institution was still entitled to summary judgment where the evidence presented indicated that a third party was responsible for any loss suffered by the appellant. The trial court properly dismissed claims against the remaining parties where proper service was not accomplished within one year.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/23/2017 3/23/2017 2017-Ohio-1033
State v. Rodano 104176Aggravated robbery; insurance fraud; grand jury; sufficiency of evidence. Although the ATF agent could not determine the cause of the fire that erupted at appellant's house as being accidental or incendiary, the state's evidence showed that, prior to the fire, appellant made incriminating statements to three individuals hinting at a plot of arson for insurance money. The state produced sufficient evidence, although circumstantial, to support appellant's convictions of aggravated arson.McCormackCuyahoga 3/23/2017 3/23/2017 2017-Ohio-1034
Wisniewshi v. Marek Builders, Inc. 104197Arbitration, Ohio Home Solicitation Sales Act. Trial court erred in enforcing an arbitration provision contained within a contract that was cancelled pursuant to the Ohio Home Solicitation Sales Act, R.C. 1345.23(C).GallagherCuyahoga 3/23/2017 3/23/2017 2017-Ohio-1035
State v. Pierce 104275Nonsupport of dependents; R.C. 2919.21; sufficiency; manifest weight; restitution; child support; R.C. 2929.18. Appellant's conviction for nonsupport of dependents is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by ordering appellant to pay the total child support arrearage as a condition of community control.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/23/2017 3/23/2017 2017-Ohio-1036
In re L.D. 104325R.C. 2151.414/permanent custody; best interest of the child; manifest weight. The trial court's determination that CCDCFS made reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and children was proper. The trial court considered factors under R.C. 2151.414 for abandonment, lack of action, best interest of the children and custodial history. The trial court's judgment of permanent custody to CCDCFS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's argument that the trial court committed reversible error fails where the record supports that the trial court's determination was in the best interest of the children.JonesCuyahoga 3/23/2017 3/23/2017 2017-Ohio-1037
Kanter v. Cleveland Hts. 104375Home Rule Amendment; chartered municipality; Ohio's Sunshine Laws; Ohio's Open Meetings Act; minutes of meetings; R.C. 121.22; Cleveland Heights Codified Ordinances 107.04; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); motion to dismiss. The trial court did not err when it dismissed appellant's complaint under R.C. 121.22 because Cleveland Heights is a chartered municipality. Under the Home Rule Amendment, municipalities have the power over matters of local, self-government. Whether a chartered municipality chooses to keep minutes of committee meetings is a matter of local self-government. Therefore, Cleveland Heights could enact an ordinance that stated recording minutes of committee meetings was discretionary.BoyleCuyahoga 3/23/2017 3/23/2017 2017-Ohio-1038
Lakewood v. Lane 104534Crim.R. 11, guilty plea; waiver of counsel; Crim.R. 44. The trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(E) because it advised the appellant of the effects of his no contest plea. The trial did not err in sentencing the appellant and his waiver of counsel was valid in accordance with Crim.R. 44(B) and (C).Laster MaysCuyahoga 3/23/2017 3/23/2017 2017-Ohio-1039
State v. Yancey 104587Allied Offenses; Merge; Different Victims; Aggravated Burglary; Theft. Trial court did not err in not merging defendant's aggravated burglary and theft offenses as allied offenses because the offenses were committed separately and the victims of each offense were different.KeoughCuyahoga 3/23/2017 3/23/2017 2017-Ohio-1040
State v. Burrell 104593Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); R.C. 2953.08; contrary to law. The trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences. The matter is remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc journal entry incorporating the court's consecutive sentence findings.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/23/2017 3/23/2017 2017-Ohio-1041
12345678910...>>