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 547 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Timmons 105940,105941,105943Drugs; heroin; Crim.R. 11; plea; voluntary; maximum; consecutive; sentence; clear and convincing; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; ineffective assistance. Appellant’s convictions for drug-related offenses and the sentences imposed in three underlying cases were upheld. The record reflected that the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 and that appellant’s guilty pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Trial court did not err in the imposition of maximum, consecutive sentences, and it could not be determined by clear and convincing evidence that the record did not support the trial court’s findings or the sentence imposed. Appellant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.GallagherCuyahoga 7/19/2018 7/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2837
In re G.J.A. 106132Custody; shared parenting plan; contempt; purge order; magistrate’s decision; abuse of discretion. Defendant-appellant mother’s appeal from the juvenile court’s order adopting the magistrate’s decision affirmed. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in adopting an order in furtherance of and providing clarification of a nearly three-year-old order finding her in contempt of her shared parenting plan with plaintiff-appellee father and ordering her to purge her contempt.KilbaneCuyahoga 7/19/2018 7/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2838
UH Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital v. Caresource 106151Arbitration, nonsignatory, compel, insurance coverage. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the nonsignatory to the contract containing a mandatory arbitration provision did not seek to benefit from the contract. The claim was an insurance coverage dispute that would be determined by relevant Ohio law and the insured’s certificate of coverage, which does not contain an arbitration provision. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. KeoughCuyahoga 7/19/2018 7/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2839
State v. Beaver 106170Conceded error; consecutive sentence; harmless; moot; served sentence; modified. Although the parties concede that the trial court did not make the requisite findings prior to imposing consecutive sentences, the error is harmless. The sentence that the trial court ordered the new sentence consecutive to was already served at the time of sentencing. KeoughCuyahoga 7/19/2018 7/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2840
State v. Thomas 106194Assault; R.C. 2903.13(A); felony; caretaker; developmentally disabled; hearsay; Evid.R. 801(C); Evid.R. 802; exceptions; Evid.R. 804(B)(5); unavailable; incompetent; Evid.R. 803(3); state of mind; Evid.R. 803(2); excited utterance; Confrontation Clause; harmless error; reasonable probability; conviction. Appellant’s conviction for assault of a developmentally disabled person was affirmed. Trial court’s allowance of hearsay testimony and alleged Confrontation Clause violation concerning statements made by nontestifying physically and mentally impaired victim was determined to be harmless because there was no reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction. The jurors heard other evidence of the assault, including testimony from an eyewitness who described the assault in detail and testimony from another witness, whom the appellant called, who testified appellant admitted to the assault. Photographs of the victim depicted an injury to his inner lip that was consistent with being slapped across the face.GallagherCuyahoga 7/19/2018 7/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2841
State v. Lugo 106219Sexual predator classification; criminal history; recidivism. As a result of the limited proceedings, the sexual predator classification is reversed and the matter remanded for the purpose of conducting a proper sexual offender classification hearing in accordance with State v. Eppinger and with full consideration of all factors enumerated in former R.C. 2950.09(B)(2). GallagherCuyahoga 7/19/2018 7/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2842
State v. Fontanez 106226Proportionate sentence; rape; kidnapping; recommended sentence; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Defendant-appellant’s nine-year sentence was within the range of his recommended sentence. Because the sentence was authorized by law, had been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecutor, and was imposed by a sentencing judge, it was not subject to appellate review.McCormackCuyahoga 7/19/2018 7/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2843
Resco Holdings, L.C.C. v. AIU Insurance Co. 106234Equitable contribution; pro rata time-on-risk; “all sums” approach; allocation; insurance coverage; fair share; equity; joint claims; interest; prejudgment interest; postjudgment interest. Trial court properly applied all sums approach to determining an insurer’s equitable share of insurance coverage liability. Two insurance plaintiffs may jointly prosecute equitable contribution claim against another insurer who has not paid its fair share of insurance coverage liability. Where judgment entry ordered interest but did not make any findings necessary for prejudgment interest, the judgment entry authorizes postjudgment, rather than prejudgment interest.GallagherCuyahoga 7/19/2018 7/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2844
Rimmer v. Citifinancial, Inc. 106337Intervention as of right; permissive intervention; class action; class notice; discovery; affidavit; Civ.R. 24; explanation; abuse of discretion; untimely; final judgment. Civ.R. 24 does not require trial courts to make findings of fact or conclusions of law. Appellants’ motions to intervene were untimely. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ separate motions to intervene.GallagherCuyahoga 7/19/2018 7/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2845
Cleveland v. Oke 106365Double jeopardy; drug court. The Cleveland Municipal Drug Court’s imposition of two successive sentences violated the prohibition against double jeopardy.BlackmonCuyahoga 7/19/2018 7/19/2018 2018-Ohio-2846
12345678910...>>