Case law

State ex rel. Shumate v. Portage County Board of Elections

64 Ohio St. 3d 12 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 20, 1992

Bringing the issues before the board establishes a record from which the court, in a *15 later action for an extraordinary writ, may judge whether the board was affected by fraud or corruption, abused its discretion, or clearly … Moreover, R.C. 3501.39(C) clearly implies that the board should not approve a petition if the candidacy violates the election law “or any other requirements established by law.”

Gannon v. Perk

46 Ohio St. 2d 301 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1976

The charter and ordinances of the city do not establish a mandatory priority for layoffs of municipal employees due to reasons of economy. … The record in *314 the instant cause clearly reveals that the layoffs at issue herein were necessitated due to lack of funds.

State v. Spikes

67 Ohio St. 2d 405 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1981

Truett received immunity and testified for the prosecution against Evans. One of the 19 other witnesses who testified for the prosecution was a man named Shaw. … Clearly, impeachment by means of a misdemeanor conviction would have been immaterial. 12 Crim. R. 16 requires only limited disclosure of criminal records.

Pschesang v. Village of Terrace Park

5 Ohio St. 3d 47 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 18, 1983

We hold that a use of property must be lawful at the time the use was *50 established in order to qualify as a nonconforming use. … Thus, a use which was lawful when it was established may qualify under this definition as a nonconforming use and be entitled to the protections in Section 1161.01(a).

Hurst v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

72 Ohio St. 3d 325 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1995

However, Reynolds and Crawford are clearly distinguishable from Sawicki and from this case. … The rule originated in English common law and survived the abrogation of sovereign immunity. Id. at 229-230 , 525 N.E.2d at 476-477 .

State ex rel. Grounds v. Hocking County Board of Elections

117 Ohio St. 3d 116 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 15, 2008

The transcript of the protest hearing establishes that the board did not preclude Grounds from introducing evidence that he qualified under R.C. 311.01(B)(8)(a) instead of R.C. 311.01(B)(8)(b). … When asked by the chair of the elections board whether he had any witnesses, Grounds declared that he did not need any other witnesses because he had established that he qualified under R.C. 311.01(B)(8)(a).

Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center

77 Ohio St. 3d 284 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1997

Accordingly, FFCC is not entitled to qualified immunity under the first sentence of R.C. 5122.34 although, as set forth infra, it is entitled to what amounts to the same thing under the “psychotherapist judgment rule.” … discussed at team meetings, it is not established that any evaluation of this decedent’s suicide propensities was made by a qualified psychiatrist during his stay at the hospital. * * * “Wfiiat happened in this case was

Thiel v. Allstate Insurance

23 Ohio St. 3d 108 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1986

At the point when the immunity is obtained, there is nothing at all conditional about it. Any claim filed after such immunity is established is ineffective against the party so protected. … The subsections (B), (F) and (G) clearly apply to such policies and not to statutory immunities.

Kirchner v. Crystal

15 Ohio St. 3d 326 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1984

The rationale for extending parental immunity to a stepparent is simply that the justifications for parental immunity hold true to a stepparent standing in loco parentis to a minor. … Here, the record clearly establishes that a parental relationship existed between appellant and appellee.

STOLZ v. J & B STEEL ERECTORS, INC., Et Al.

155 Ohio St. 3d 567 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2018

Id. {¶ 8} The legislature established the Ohio workers' compensation system under this authority. See R.C. Chapter 4123. … To violate the guarantee, a statute must be a "serious infringement of a clearly preexisting right to bring suit." Fabrey v.

City of East Cleveland v. Board of County Commissioners

69 Ohio St. 2d 23 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1982

This court rejected the application of absolute governmental immunity from zoning. … s decision in Doan was based upon the reasoning that: “ ‘The right of eminent domain rests upon public necessity, and a contract or covenant, or plan of allotment, which attempts to prevent the exercise of that right is clearly

Petti v. City of Richmond Heights

5 Ohio St. 3d 129 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1983

Even if the legality of the use in 1967 has not been established, the zone map in evidence clearly indicates that the area was zoned residential when the ordinance was amended in 1972. … Because appellant argued that his property qualified for a nonconforming use, he had the burden of establishing that it met the requirements necessary to qualify for a nonconforming use.

Hall v. City of Youngstown

15 Ohio St. 2d 160 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1968

Plaintiff in this case admits the principle that a municipality in its capacity as a firefighter is immune from suit, but strongly urges that in its capacity as a provider1 of water it is not immune from suit. … It was clearly a trespass, and this court held that the city was amenable to suit.

State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Hughes

58 Ohio St. 3d 273 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1991

Therefore, only criminal liability need be immunized. Ullmann v. United States (1956), 350 U.S. 422 ; Piemonte v. United States (1961), 367 U.S. 556 . … However, even where the legislature has clearly expressed an intention to establish a civil penalty, a challenger may show that the purpose and effect of the statute are punitive and negate the legislature’s classification

Taylor v. Academy Iron & Metal Co.

36 Ohio St. 3d 149 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1988

As this language clearly indicates, only an employee or his legal representative, not a third-party tortfeasor, may bring a civil suit against an employer alleging that the employer committed intentional torts leading to … That immunity is obviously not of such a character that it cannot be so waived.”

Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Ctr.

77 Ohio St. 3d 284 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1997

Chapter 5122 is not entitled to the immunity bestowed by R.C. 5122.34. {¶ 73} Accordingly, FFCC is not entitled to qualified immunity under the first sentence of R.C. 5122.34 although, as set forth infra, it is entitled … The court explained as follows: “The determinative factual issue is whether or not a qualified psychiatrist was actively supervising the care of the decedent. * * * “* * * “While this record establishes

State ex rel. Dunn v. Plain Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (Slip Opinion)

158 Ohio St. 3d 370 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 9, 2020

(C) clearly requires the Plain Local school board to cause the board of elections to check the sufficiency of the signatures on relators’ petition. … Moreover, the Plain Local school board clearly knew that the petition was a transfer petition under R.C. 3311.242 because its November 20 resolution identified it as such.

State Ex Rel. Burgstaller v. Franklin County Board of Elections

149 Ohio St. 193 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1948

That section prescribes clearly that such a petition ‘ ‘ shall be signed by five, but not more than five, qualified electors.” … We hold, therefore, that because the relator has not established a clear, legal right to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, the demurrer is sustained and the writ denied. Writ denied.

Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Porterfield

14 Ohio St. 2d 85 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1968

Matthias, J., in a well-reasoned opinion, speaking for a unanimous court, clearly and definitely recognized and approved the “current operational needs” rule in the case of Continental Cofee Co. v. … The Supreme Court of the United States, in Ho oven, supra, firmly establishes the “use test” when endeavoring to determine when the federal constitutional immunity from state taxation is removed from an import in this language

City of Cincinnati v. Bawtenheimer

63 Ohio St. 3d 260 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1992

The DePaola court held that the ordinance provided use immunity as opposed to the transactional immunity afforded by R.C. 2945.44. … The court discussed the distinctions between the two types of immunities as follows: “Transactional immunity is that immunity which protects a witness from prosecution when he gives compelled testimony which may be incriminating