• Ohio Supreme Court

Latest documents

  • Artz v. Elizabeth Twp., (Ohio 2014)

    The trial court properly dismissed count one of Appellants’ complaint for declaratory judgment since Appellants’ animal crematorium is not an agricultural use exempt from the Zoning Authority of Elizabeth Township. Judgment affirmed.

  • State v. Clark, (Ohio 2014)

    Sufficient evidence was adduced at trial to sustain appellant’s conviction for one count of sexual imposition. Trial court did not err when it sustained the State’s objections and limited the cross-examination of the police detective. Defense counsel was properly prevented from asking the detective his opinion of the definition of sexual contact. Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to file a motion to suppress. A substantial amount of testimony from other witnesses existed which corroborated the victim’s testimony, and absent appellant’s statements to the police, we cannot say that there is a reasonable probability that he would have been acquitted. Judgment affirmed.

  • Parallel Homes, L.L.C. v. Stephens, (Ohio 2014)

    PROCEDURE/RULES: In an action for eviction and money damages filed by a landlord, the trial court erred in granting judgment to the tenant on the tenant’s pro se counterclaim for property damage where the tenant failed to include a certificate of service on the landlord’s attorney of record as required by Civ.R. 5.

  • State v. Coleman, (Ohio 2014)

    The appellant’s aggravated robbery and vandalism convictions are based on legally sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in finding that the appellant had failed to overcome the statutory presumption of competence to stand trial. The record does not portray ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Judgment affirmed.

  • Said v. Admr., Bur. of Workers' Comp., (Ohio 2014)

    JURISDICTION/VENUE – PROCEDURE/RULES: The trial court did not have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement where the court had unconditionally dismissed the action and the entry of dismissal did not contain the terms of the settlement agreement or specifically retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. (Lamp v. Goettle, Inc., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-040461, 2005-Ohio-1877, followed.) The trial court erred in granting the plaintiff’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the judgment entry of dismissal because his argument that there was “no meeting of the minds” on the settlement agreement did not fall within any of the grounds for relief in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (4), and he did not show the exceptional circumstances necessary to afford relief from judgment unde...

  • State v. Grissom, (Ohio 2014)

    Appellant’s convictions for felonious assault, discharging a weapon on or near a prohibited premises, and having a weapon while under disability were supported by the record and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. As a result, the record also contains sufficient evidence to support each of Appellant’s convictions, and the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion for acquittal. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in providing the jury with a flight instruction, as there was sufficient evidence indicating that Appellant fled the scene after committing a felonious assault. Finally, the trial court did not err in failing to merge Appellant’s convictions for felonious assault and having a weapon while under disability, because the off...

  • Ketchum v. Coleman, (Ohio 2014)

    The trial court did not err when it found that appellant was voluntarily unemployed and imputed additional income to her for child support purposes pursuant to R.C. 3119.01(C)(11). Judgment affirmed.

  • King v. Niswonger, (Ohio 2014)

    The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting certain expert opinions. The opinions were an extension of those expressed in discovery deposition and constituted arithmetic calculations derived from them. Appellant could have anticipated that the expert’s testimony would include them and was not prejudiced by their inclusion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting cross examination of the expert. The limitation properly excluded testimony on matters beyond the expert’s ken. The trial court properly directed a verdict on certain causation issues. The jury interrogatory, listing eight types of losses and injuries, is permissible. Lastly, the jury’s award is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

  • In re L.B., (Ohio 2014)

    Trial court did not err in overruling Crim.R. 29 motion and adjudicating juvenile to have been delinquent. Act of cutting off Electronically Monitored House Arrest ankle bracelet and throwing it in the river prevented juvenile’s probation officer from performing her duty to monitor the juvenile’s compliance with the terms of the house arrest for fourteen hours. This act would have constituted the offense of Vandalism, in violation of R.C. 2909.05(B)(1)(b), had the juvenile been an adult. Affirmed.

  • Roberts v. Erie Ins. Group, (Ohio 2014)

    On remand from the Ohio Supreme Court, Roberts v. Erie Ins. Group, 136 Ohio St.3d 1469, 2013-Ohio-3790, 993 N.E.2d 774, reversing and remanding our judgment in Roberts v. Erie Ins. Group, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2012 CA 46, 2013-Ohio-718, we consider evidentiary arguments that were not addressed in our prior Opinion. Plaintiff’s argument that she was prejudiced by the trial court‘s improper admission of an exhibit which summarized unauthenticated medical expenses is without merit. Even assuming that the documents were hearsay, were unauthenticated, and that the reasonableness of the expenses was not established by expert testimony, the exhibits did not suggest that plaintiff had not incurred any medical expenses. Judgment affirmed.

Featured documents

  • Bell v. Nichols, (Ohio 2013)

    Judgment affirmed. Trial court did not err in adopting magistrate's decision and finding that plaintiffs engaged in frivolous conduct under R.C. 2323.51 by filing an action which was an improper collateral attack and clearly barred by res judicata. The magistrate did not err in quashing several...

  • State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5677
  • Lawarre v. Fifth Third Secs., Inc., (Ohio 2012)

    BROKERS – CONTRACTS – NEGLIGENCE – TORT MISCELLANEOUS: A broker or financial advisor has a fiduciary relationship with his clients. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of a securities firm on the firm’s former clients’ claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary...

  • Wilson v. Kasich (Slip Opinion), Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5367

    Apportionment—The Ohio Constitution does not mandate political neutrality in the reapportionment of house and senate districts—Partisan considerations cannot prevail over the nonpartisan requirements set forth in Article XI—One challenging the constitutionality of an apportionment plan must...

  • State v. Lang (Slip Opinion), Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4215

    Criminal law — Aggravated murder — Death penalty upheld....

  • State v. Jackson, (Ohio 2012)

    Motion to suppress/lab results/manifest...

  • Cameron v. Cameron, (Ohio 2012)

    Where the trial court’s unambiguous divorce decree allocated the husband’s retirement fund, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in subsequently adopting a DOPO that defendant’s expert submitted as effectuating the terms of that allocation in the trial court’s unappealed divorce decree....

  • State v. Noling (Slip Opinion), Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1764

    Criminal law—R.C. 2953.73—Postconviction DNA testing—Appellate jurisdiction—R.C. 2953.73(E)(1), which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Ohio to review rejections of applications for DNA testing in cases in which the death penalty is imposed, is constitutional—Before dismissing a ...

  • State v. Mason, (Ohio 2012)

    Field sobriety...

  • State v. Pellegrini, (Ohio 2013)

    Defendant-appellant’s robbery and grand theft convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial counsel was not ineffective....