Case law

State ex rel. ClenDening v. Rose

93 Ohio St. (N.S.) 284 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1915

Hurst then qualified and took possession of the office under the color of his appointment as a de facto official. … Baldwin, supra, clearly establish the legal principles that apply. In The State, ex rel. Mason, v. The Mayor of Paterson, 35 N. J.

Robbins v. Smith

72 Ohio St. (N.S.) 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1905

It is a clearly expressed remainder over, and carries the further implication that the precedent estate in the daughter was less than an absolute estate. … The intent to create an absolute estate must be beyond serious question before a subsequent item, if it clearly creates a remainder, *16 can be alleged to be repugnant.

State v. D'Ambrosio

73 Ohio St. 3d 141 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1995

Appellant clearly acted as a principal offender. The potential mitigation factor in R.C. 2929.04(B)(6), therefore, is not present. See State v. … Appellant also qualified as an expert with the M-16 and other firearms. The Army offered to promote appellant if he re-enlisted at the conclusion of his initial term, but he declined.

State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion)

150 Ohio St. 3d 463 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2016

Due Process {¶ 12} The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor … Clearly, the mandatory-transfer provisions and discretionary-transfer provisions are capable of separation, can be read independently, and can stand independently.

State ex rel. Marchiano v. School Employees Retirement System

121 Ohio St. 3d 139 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 3, 2009

Denial of Discovery {¶ 24} Marchiano asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying her motion to conduct limited discovery in the mandamus case for the purpose of establishing that Dr. … Hawkins was a competent and disinterested physician qualified to conduct an examination of the disability-retirement applicant. Dr.

Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission

117 Ohio St. 3d 301 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 6, 2008

of Market Presence {¶ 23} In its fifth proposition, OCC challenges the commission’s application of Tests 3 and 4, which award alternative regulation if the applicant shows, inter alia, the presence of a minimum number of qualified … Its finding that AT & T met the requirements for a showing of public interest will not be disturbed by this court absent a demonstration that it is clearly unsupported by the record.

In re Disqualification of Synenberg

127 Ohio St. 3d 1220 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 10, 2009

She further notes that she was not qualified for death-penalty cases at the time of Keenan’s retrial in 1993 and 1994. … . {¶ 18} To prevail on an affidavit of disqualification, an affiant must demonstrate clearly the existence of bias, prejudice, or other disqualifying interest that requires a judge’s removal.

In re L.A.B.

121 Ohio St. 3d 112 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2009

Juv.R. 34 establishes the procedure for dispositional hearings for juveniles who have been abused, neglected, and dependent. … Since a probation revocation hearing may result in a finding that the juvenile has violated a court order and is delinquent, a probation hearing qualifies as an adjudicatory hearing under the Ohio Rules of Juvenile Procedure

State ex rel. Pepsi-Cola Bottling v. Morse

72 Ohio St. 3d 210 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 17, 1995

. {¶ 17} Underlying claimant's argument is the belief that once eligibility for compensation has been established, that eligibility is forever immune from further challenge. … Certainly, the more clearly articulated the request, the better.

Ide v. State

95 Ohio St. (N.S.) 224 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1917

one not elected by the people to serve in an official capacity including the exercise of judicial functions, when assigned to the performance of such duties in the manner and method provided by the charter adopted by the qualified … commission to elect one of its members, who, in addition to his other duties, shall exercise the judicial functions of mayor, is similar in some respects to the provisions of Sections 4549 and 4569, General Code, but much more clearly

Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife (Slip Opinion)

144 Ohio St. 3d 278 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 17, 2015

.” {¶ 2} For the reasons that follow, R.C. 1531.201 is unambiguous and clearly expresses the intent of the legislature. … Conclusion {¶ 31} R.C. 1531.201 is unambiguous and clearly expresses the intent of the legislature.

Motor Service Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

37 Ohio St. 2d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1974

And such a conclusion is clearly within the discretionary powers of this commission.” … Further, we feel that such a distinction is useless insofar as determining compliance with any 60-day order, and therefore do not qualify the term “compliance” in this opinion.

Robbins v. Hennessey

86 Ohio St. (N.S.) 181 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1912

Whatever may have been the abuses against which the provisions of this act were directed, it clearly appears from the act itself that the general assembly of Ohio considered these contracts to be in restraint of trade, and … In other words, he can receive no further rights, no further privileges, no further immunities, no further benefits than the insurance company in the exercise of its franchise is authorized to grant.

State ex rel. Feltner v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)

160 Ohio St. 3d 359 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 28, 2020

.3d 79, 529 N.E.2d 436 (1988). {¶ 22} To facilitate the collection of taxes, the General Assembly has empowered boards of revision to foreclose on certain tax-delinquent properties and to order direct transfers to qualified … But instead the lead opinion says what really matters is whether there is any precedent establishing that a tribunal’s action is unconstitutional.

ASA Architects, Inc. v. Schlegel

75 Ohio St. 3d 666 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1996

The stock purchase agreement was established to provide for the disposition of the shares of stock held by these individuals. … court of appeals determined essentially that the defendant failed to prove that he was not responsible for the dissolution of the company and the ultimate termination of the subject matter of the contract. {¶ 18} Clearly

Hubbell v. Hubbell

22 Ohio St. (N.S.) 208 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1871

This rule, however, is qualified by section 313, as amended April 15, 1867 (S. & S. 556), so that “ no party to a civil action shall be allowed to testify by virtue of section 310, in any action where the adverse party” claims … If the action had been against him alone, clearly they would have been competent; but the-effect of the joinder is the question.

State ex rel. M/I Homes of Cincinnati, L.L.C. v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections

2025 Ohio 4362 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 17, 2025

In answering this question, we ask whether the “board acted fraudulently or corruptly, abused its discretion, or clearly disregarded applicable law.” State ex rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. … This sentence at least uses the word “portion,” but even that qualifier is imprecise because the trustees did not specify which parcels the qualifier pertained to.

Ackison v. Anchor Packing Co.

120 Ohio St. 3d 228 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 15, 2008

These provisions establish certain threshold requirements. … The General Assembly’s failure to clearly enunciate retroactivity ends the analysis, and the relevant statute may be applied only prospectively. Id.

State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose (Slip Opinion)

2022 Ohio 3295 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 20, 2022

. {¶ 7} To qualify for the ballot, Maras needed to submit at least 5,000 valid petition signatures. See R.C. 3513.257(A). … Clearly then, “[a] jurat is not the same as an acknowledgment.” 1A Corpus Juris Secundum, Acknowledgments, Section 1 (2022). The key difference is that an acknowledgment is not made under oath.

State v. George

45 Ohio St. 3d 325 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1989

We did not merely refine or qualify the ‘two-pronged test.’ … The Illinois court ruled that the “two-pronged” test established by Aguilar v. Texas, supra, and Spinelli v.