Case law

State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Info. Network v. Shirey

78 Ohio St. 3d 400 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 14, 1997

If the City had undertaken this task without hiring PDI, the applications would clearly have been subject to the open-record law. … Ohio Dept. of Health (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 553 N.E.2d 1345, 1347. {¶ 19} Gannett has established a sufficient public benefit.

Smith v. Smith

13 Ohio St. 532 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1862

The act of 1805, fixes the same limit for recording conveyances, and only differs in the phraseology so as to make its provisions more clearly embrace mortgages. … But *539 while the act of 1831, it is conceded, has remained since its enactment unrepealed and in force, its provisions have been qualified by subsequent legislation upon the same subject.

State v. Frazier

115 Ohio St. 3d 139 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 10, 2007

However, the record does not affirmatively establish Frazier’s absence. State v. … Forgac were both fully qualified to render an opinion that Frazier is not mentally retarded. We note that Dr.

State ex rel. Nimon v. Village of Springdale

6 Ohio St. 2d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1966

An agreed statement of facts and the evidence adduced by way of a deposition in this original action establishes that a referendum petition against ordinance No. 11-1965 of the village of Springdale, Ohio, was submitted to … Brown, 38 Ohio St. 344 (mandamus granted on relation of elector to compel sheriff to give notice to qualified voters to elect a Com *5 mon Pleas Court judge); State, ex rel., v.

State v. Wilson

170 Ohio St. 3d 12 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2022

And again, that definition superseded the definition of “operate” that this court established in the context of OVI offenses under R.C. 4511.19 in Cleary and Gill. … Yet the court refuses to give stare decisis effect to our precedent. {¶ 52} The lead opinion strives mightily to get around the precedent problem posed by Clearly and Gill.

Siltstone Resources, L.L.C. v. Ohio Pub. Works Comm. (Slip Opinion)

168 Ohio St. 3d 439 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2022

See 26 U.S.C. 170(h) (requiring that a “conservation purpose [be] protected in perpetuity” in order to qualify as a “qualified conservation contribution” of land under the Internal Revenue Code); see also R.C. 5301.85 and … In contrast, a partial restraint will be qualified in some way.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Perrico

176 Ohio St. 3d 42 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2024

R.C. 2907.05(C)(1). {¶ 60} The record before us establishes by clear and convincing evidence that Perrico’s conduct constituted gross sexual imposition. See Gov.Bar R. … And C.P.’s testimony establishes that Perrico touched her vagina, thighs, breasts, and arms.

Voinovich v. Ferguson

63 Ohio St. 3d 198 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1992

Such issues are clearly appropriate for judicial resolution. … Plaintiffs explain that they first named as single house districts counties that qualified under Section 10(A), and second, those that qualified under Section 10(B).

State ex rel. McKay v. Kauer

156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 347 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1951

Those cases are clearly distinguishable from the instant case and other cases of like character in that respect. … The respondent in making this claim clearly misapprehends the force and effect of the ordinance in question.

State v. Baston

85 Ohio St. 3d 418 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 12, 1999

An alleged error “does not constitute a plain error * * * unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. … First, the prosecutor’s remarks were made in the penalty phase, after the aggravated murder had already been established.

Gaines v. Union Transportation & Insurance

28 Ohio St. (N.S.) 418 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1876

Although the exception is allowed, it is always required that the facts to sustain it should be clearly established. “ A bill of lading is signed by the carrier only, but when it is delivered to the shipper and he assents … If the all rail clause had been proved, it would only have established another breach of a common carrier’s, duty.

Daniel v. Daniel (Slip Opinion)

139 Ohio St. 3d 275 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 26, 2014

Here, the General Assembly has clearly expressed its intent by enacting R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a), which specifically defines “marital property” to include: (i) All real and personal property that currently … {¶ 26} We have established that a trial court has broad discretion to divide property in domestic relations cases, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable conduct

State ex rel. Hornbeck v. Durflinger

73 Ohio St. (N.S.) 154 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1905

meaning of this provision of the constitution, the right guaranteed to the accused is not an absolute right to be tried in all cases by a jury of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, but is a qualified … And if constitutional, said statute clearly authorizes the relief asked by relator in his petition, and the demurrer of defendant should be overruled.

State v. Coleman

37 Ohio St. 3d 286 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1988

By doing so in this case, the state contends the trial court effectively and clearly cautioned the jury that the inference created was non-conclusive. We agree. … We believe the bizarre circumstance in this case qualifies as a legitimate “other reason” for discharging the juror under the statute. Hence, we find no abuse of discretion. See, also, State v.

In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., for Approval of its Fourth Amended Corporate Separation Plan (Slip Opinion)

148 Ohio St. 3d 510 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 1, 2016

In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., for Auth. to Establish a Standard Serv. Offer Pursuant to Section 1928.143, Revised Code, in the Form of an Elec. Sec. … The authority granted to the commission in R.C. 4928.17(C) to issue an order approving a plan that does not comply with R.C. 4928.17(A)(1) is qualified and extremely narrow.

Morris v. Ohio Casualty Insurance

35 Ohio St. 3d 45 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1988

No particular form of appointment is necessary to establish such authority.” See fn. 2, supra. … Further, title does not pass in such a situation because “* * * the transferee who takes under the thief’s forged indorsement cannot qualify as a holder because section 3-202(2) [R.C. 1303.23(B)] says that ‘[a]n indorsement

State ex rel. Brill v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections

177 Ohio St. 3d 156 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 16, 2024

On July 31, the board certified that relators’ petition contained enough signatures to qualify for placement on the November 5 general- election ballot. … After the board of elections determined that the petitions had enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, the municipal clerk refused to certify the petitions. Id. at ¶ 9.

Browning v. Burt

66 Ohio St. 3d 544 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1993

SEMC was clearly attempting to insulate itself from liability. In doing so, the hospital was telling its patients that Dr. … Allenius clearly envisions and requires that the patient investigate and pursue all "possible remedies" once he or she has been put on notice by the cognizable event.

State v. Heins

72 Ohio St. 3d 504 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1995

The General Assembly sought to avoid such mischief by requiring police officers on traffic duty to be identified clearly." Columbus v. … An airplane, appellants argue, does not qualify as a motor vehicle under the rule. Therefore, Watkins was incompetent to testify in this case. {¶ 13} The interpretation of Evid.

Sinks v. Reese

19 Ohio St. (N.S.) 306 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1869

Eight other inmates of the asylum similarly qualified or disqualified, were permitted to vote, and did vote for Reese. … We are furthermore of the opinion that the court below erred in counting for the contestor the vote of one Wortz, whom the testimony clearly shows, we think, to be an idiot; and also in refusing to count the vote of an old