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 109 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Miles 5-18-06The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. By pleading guilty, defendant-appellant waived his argument that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that he was entrapped by law enforcement.PrestonHancock 8/20/2018 8/20/2018 2018-Ohio-3317
Holt v. Feron 9-17-43The judgment of the trial court to grant the civil stalking protection order was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in questioning witnesses when no obection was raised, the questions did not indicate a bias, and the matter was a trial to the bench.WillamowskiMarion 8/20/2018 8/20/2018 2018-Ohio-3318
State v. Davenport 10-18-05Defendant was not denied due process at community control revocation hearing and defendant did not demonstrate that his sentece was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.ShawMercer 8/20/2018 8/20/2018 2018-Ohio-3319
State v. Hampton 13-18-01The State’s evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding the defendant-appellant guilty of Failure to Comply with Order or Signal of a Police Officer. Further, the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.ZimmermanSeneca 8/20/2018 8/20/2018 2018-Ohio-3320
State v. Yoder 14-18-03Sufficient evidence exists in the record to convict the Defendant-Appellant of gross sexual imposition. Further, the judgment of the trial court was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.ZimmermanUnion 8/20/2018 8/20/2018 2018-Ohio-3321
State v. Jacobs 8-18-04The sentencing entry imposing postrelease control is not void because a reasonable person in defendant-appellant's position had sufficient notice that the trial court authorized postrelease control to be imposed following the expiration of his sentence despite the trial court's mistaken use of discretionary language in the sentencing entry. Because defendant-appellant's sentence is not void, any challenge to the propriety of the sentencing court's imposition of postrelease control in the sentencing entry could have been raised in a direct appeal. Because defendant-appellant failed to directly appeal his conviction and sentence, any challenge to the imposition of postrelease control is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.PrestonLogan 8/13/2018 8/13/2018 2018-Ohio-3218
In re L.A. 13-18-12The trial court did not abuse its discretion by adopting the magistrate's decision that denied appellant's visitation request.ZimmermanSeneca 8/13/2018 8/13/2018 2018-Ohio-3219
State v. Grater 7-18-01, 7-18-02, 7-18-03, 7-18-04, 7-18-05, 7-18-06, 7-18-07, 7-18-08, 7-18-09, 7-18-10, 7-18-11, 7-18-12, 7-18-13, 7-18-14, 7-18-15, 7-18-16, 7-18-17, 7-18-18Defendants-appellants' convictions for violating a township's zoning resolution are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendants-appellants waived arguments that a township's zoning resolution is void for vagueness and deprived them of equal protection. Defendants-appellants were not fined in excess of the maximum fine permitted under R.C. 519.99. By failing to raise the issue of selective prosecution in a pre-trial motion, defendants-appellants waived the defense of selective prosecution.PrestonHenry 7/30/2018 7/30/2018 2018-Ohio-3000
State v. Heimberger 9-17-45The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant-appellant’s witness to testify as an expert or lay witness. Further, the stop of the defendant-appellant was based upon a reasonable suspicion and her statements made to the arresting officer were not in violation of her constitutional rights. Lastly, the jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.ZimmermanMarion 7/30/2018 7/30/2018 2018-Ohio-3001
State v. Dukes 13-17-39The trial court’s comments made while admitting an exhibit into evidence did not prejudice the appellant. Further, the conviction of the appellant was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.ZimmermanSeneca 7/30/2018 7/30/2018 2018-Ohio-3002
12345678910...>>