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 737 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Thomas 105824Guilty plea; Crim.R. 11; R.C. 2151.23(I), 2152.03 and 2152.12(J); statute of limitations; rape. Trial court had subject matter jurisdiction where defendant was indicted for rape after attaining adulthood; after the court learned that defendant had been detained as a juvenile for offense, it properly transferred matter to juvenile court and defendant was in turn bound over to general division; trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss under statute of limitations; trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 in accepting guilty plea and in properly advising defendant of constitutional and nonconstitutional rights; matter would be remanded for defendant to receive jail-time credit for juvenile detention.BlackmonCuyahoga 10/11/2018 10/11/2018 2018-Ohio-4106
State v. Keller 106196Rape, substantially impaired, knowledge, voluntary intoxication, sleep, Evid.R. 403(A), flight. Defendant’s rape conviction is upheld where sufficient evidence was presented that the defendant knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the victim was substantially impaired. The evidence showed that the defendant was with the victim while she consumed alcohol and smoked marijuana. The victim was also asleep when the rape occurred. The trial court allowed irrelevant testimony to be presented, but the error was harmless because both the victim and the defendant testified, allowing the jury to assess their credibility without relying on irrelevant testimony. The jury instruction on flight was harmless error because the defendant testified about his motives for leaving the scene.KeoughCuyahoga 10/11/2018 10/11/2018 2018-Ohio-4107
State v. Jordan 106273Rape; aggravated burglary; kidnapping; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel; prosecutorial misconduct; cumulative error.BlackmonCuyahoga 10/11/2018 10/11/2018 2018-Ohio-4108
Cleveland v. Grunt 106381Community control sanctions; interior inspection of property; housing code violation; misdemeanor sentencing; constitutionality of inspection; privacy expectations. Court’s imposition of interior property inspection as a condition of community control sanctions imposed for exterior housing code violations is constitutional.BlackmonCuyahoga 10/11/2018 10/11/2018 2018-Ohio-4109
Podor v. Harlow 106442Prof.Cond.R. 1.2, 1.7, 1.10, 1.13, 3.4, and 3.7; disqualification of opposing counsel; conflict of interest; loyalty to organization; counsel as witness. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee’s motion to disqualify opposing counsel from representing affiliated business organizations and their trustees, employees, directors, and officers. A substantial risk of a conflict of interest exists where counsel is a named party to the proceedings; served as business counsel for the codefendant businesses; represented codefendant officers, directors, trustees, and employees against appellee in a prior litigation as well as the current action; may testify as witnesses; or who will be unable to properly defend their clients due to adverse interests.Laster MaysCuyahoga 10/11/2018 10/11/2018 2018-Ohio-4110
State v. Swanson 106566Petition for postconviction relief, R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), res judicata. The trial court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant’s petition for postconviction relief because the defendant did not claim that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering facts upon which he relied in his petition or that the United States Supreme Court has recognized a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to him.BoyleCuyahoga 10/11/2018 10/11/2018 2018-Ohio-4111
Rockside-77 Properties, L.L.C. v. Partners Fin. Group, L.L.C. 106613Lease; landlord; lessor; lessee; rent; contract; personal guaranty; contract interpretation; matter of law; de novo; damages; reasonable certainty. Judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the trial court to enter judgment that the personal guaranty is capped at $6,000. The trial court erred, as a matter of law, in interpreting the guaranty to find that lessee made only 11 qualifying “rent” payments and that defendant’s personal obligation under the guaranty was reduced only to $49,000. With regard to the damages award, the defendants did not offer any evidence demonstrating that lessor’s calculations are incorrect. The defendants did not dispute the amount owed; rather, they assert that lessor’s damages must be incorrect because it offered different accountings at different times. Accordingly, there is sufficient, credible evidence in the record that supports lessor’s assessment of damages, including late fees and interest, with reasonable certainty.KilbaneCuyahoga 10/11/2018 10/11/2018 2018-Ohio-4112
State v. Bridges 106653Postconviction petition; new evidence; errors in sentencing; res judicata. Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief is untimely where his petition was filed more than three years after the trial transcript in his direct appeal was filed and he presents no new evidence in support of his claims. His claims alleging sentencing errors are also barred by res judicata because they could have been raised in his direct appeal.McCormackCuyahoga 10/11/2018 10/11/2018 2018-Ohio-4113
State v. Patterson 106655Involuntary manslaughter; firearm specification; attempted murder; tampering with evidence; carrying a concealed weapon; negotiated plea agreement; jointly recommended sentence; consecutive sentence; R.C. 2929.14; R.C. 2953.08(D)(1); authorized by law. Because Patterson’s 25-year sentence was within the range jointly recommended by Patterson and the state and authorized by law, it is not subject to appellate review, despite the absence of an explicit agreement as to consecutive sentences.McCormackCuyahoga 10/11/2018 10/11/2018 2018-Ohio-4114
State v. Carter 106690Postconviction relief; R.C. 2953.21; interlocutory order; final, appealable order; R.C. 2505.02; substantial right. The trial court's denial of appellant's motion to amend his petition for postconviction relief is an interlocutory order and does not affect a substantial right that appellant would not be able to protect without immediate review where his original petition remains pending.McCormackCuyahoga 10/11/2018 10/11/2018 2018-Ohio-4115
12345678910...>>