Case law

State ex rel. Hoel v. Brown

105 Ohio St. (N.S.) 479 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1922

“A trial by court of justice, according to the regular and established course of judicial proceedings.” “Process due according to the law of the land.” … It must have been clearly intended that a “complaint and hearing” should be allowed “to all officers.”

State v. Joseph

73 Ohio St. 3d 450 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1995

that the grant of immunity had not been disclosed to the defense. … The mitigating factors of R.C. 2929.04(B)(1),(2),(3), and (6) were not established.

Strunk v. Dayton Power & Light Co.

6 Ohio St. 3d 429 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1983

Furthermore, the decisions of this court clearly establish that liability under the statute is limited to those conditions which render a street or highway unsafe for usual and ordinary modes of travel. … The mere abrogation of immunity does not free a plaintiff from establishing the required elements of the alleged tortious conduct.

Turner v. Central Local School District

85 Ohio St. 3d 95 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1999

In answering the question in the affirmative, we reasoned: “Because primary assumption of risk, when applicable, prevents a plaintiff from establishing the duty element of a negligence case and so entitles a defendant to … Central, a school district and thus a political subdivision, clearly had the right to rely upon the immunity provisions found in the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, R.C. Chapter 2744. See R.C. 2744.01(F).

White v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.

40 Ohio St. 3d 390 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1988

Whether such a product qualifies as “unavoidably unsafe” under Comment A; is a determination to be made on a case-by-case basis. … BERG, J.: Neurological complications of pertussis immunization. Brit. Med. J. 2:24, 1958. “7.

Burger v. Cleveland Hts.

87 Ohio St. 3d 188 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1999

Subsection (B)(2) is further divided into Subsections (a) through (f). {¶ 27} Subsection (B)(1) establishes the original jurisdiction of this court. … Since this was not done, the section obviously pertains to the court’s original jurisdiction. {¶ 29} That having been established, what then does Subsection (f) mean?

Cleveland v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. (Slip Opinion)

159 Ohio St. 3d 459 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2020

In 1975, the General Assembly waived the state’s sovereign immunity in most instances, R.C. 2743.02; Am.Sub.H.B. … That should not render it immune from a claim for restitution of money.

Santos v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation

101 Ohio St. 3d 74 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 21, 2004

R.C. 2743.03 established the Court of Claims, vesting it with “exclusive, original jurisdiction of all civil actions against the state permitted by the waiver of immunity contained in section 2743.02 of the Revised Code.” … This court disagreed, finding that sovereign immunity was not applicable to the case.

Alexander v. Mt. Carmel Medical Center

56 Ohio St. 2d 155 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1978

Clearly, the application and removal of a cast are not procedures limited to orthopedic surgeons. See Steinberg v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America (C. … “You have not qualified him to do anything. He says, yes, he is a surgeon, but that does not qualify him to testify.

Brady v. Safety-Kleen Corp.

61 Ohio St. 3d 624 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1991

Thus, some claimants were left without any redress whatsoever even in cases of clearly egregious employer behavior. See, e.g., Bevis v. … be caused by his own fault or the fault of a co-employee; that the immunity established in Section 35 of Article II, Ohio Constitution, and sections 4123.74 and 4123.741 of the Revised Code is an essential aspect of Ohio

Nobles v. Wolf

54 Ohio St. 3d 75 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1990

Hamilton Mutual maintains that Wolf does not qualify for the immunity granted by R.C. 4123.741 because: (1) Wolf was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the collision, (2) there was no … . 5 Clearly the latter situation represents the more common occurrence.

Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.

75 Ohio St. 3d 312 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1996

14  January Term, 1996 {¶ 40} Gladon quite clearly entered appellant’s property as an invitee. … “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

Glidden Co. v. Glander

151 Ohio St. 344 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 4, 1949

. * * *” The record clearly shows that on tax listing day for the year 1946, this claim constituted merely an open account and, therefore, falls within the doctrine announced in the case of Smith v. … Davis, supra, to qualify it as an indebtedness affecting the credit of the' United States.

Walczesky v. Horvitz Co.

26 Ohio St. 2d 146 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 19, 1971

We see no reason at this time to retreat from the rule of absolute liability as clearly declared in Louden . … The third proposition of law advanced by defendant is that plaintiff failed to establish that the damages were the proximate result of defendant’s blasting operations.

State v. Landrum

53 Ohio St. 3d 107 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1990

Grant’s statement also qualifies as a declaration against penal interest by admitting his own guilt as a principal to murder. … We find Landrum’s age of twenty-three only minimally qualifies as a mitigating factor under R.C. 2929.04 (B)(4), “youth of the offender.”

Commerce & Industry Insurance v. City of Toledo

45 Ohio St. 3d 96 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1989

Thus, the statute was enacted to impose liability, not grant immunity. … Section 15(D), Article II of the Ohio Constitution mandates that “[n]o bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. * * *” Sovereign immunity for municipalities endured until 1982

Hyde v. City of Lakewood

2 Ohio St. 2d 155 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 19, 1965

Section 715.37, Revised Code, confers upon municipal corporations, among other things, the power to provide for the public health and to erect, maintain and regulate hospitals. *157 Clearly, this legislation is designed to … Consequently, the defense of governmental immunity may not be validly interposed by defendant to escape liability.

Chambers v. Owens-Ames-Kimball Co.

146 Ohio St. 559 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 22, 1946

Such interpretation of the statute, and as a consequence its administration in conformity to such interpretation, is clearly untenable. Arthur M. … Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution provides: “* * * No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state

M.J. DiCorpo, Inc. v. Sweeney

1994 Ohio 316 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1994

Clearly, if the filing of a grievance with a local bar association is part of a "judicial proceeding," the same must also be true of an affidavit filed with a county prosecutor. … immunity."

Cincinnati Golf Management, Inc. v. Testa

132 Ohio St. 3d 299 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2012

In a claim for tax exemption, the “onus is on the taxpayer to show that the language of the statute ‘clearly express[es] the exemption’ in relation to the facts of the claim.” Anderson/Maltbie Partnership v. … for the exemption apart from establishing a status as an actual purchasing agent of the city.