Case law

Industrial Commission v. Brown

92 Ohio St. (N.S.) 309 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1915

original or the present law, desired to make plain its intention to exclude occupational disease from participation in the fund, the exclusion could readily have been made by adding to the words “personal injuries” the qualifying … thereto are only less numerous than those arising from pure accident, and. no sound policy can be suggested that should protect the one class and ignore the other, especially when the compensation system becomes firmly established

Utility Service Partners, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission

124 Ohio St. 3d 284 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2009

What USP establishes, at best, either is irrelevant or does not justify reversal. It points out other types of evidence that could have been presented but were not. … We have held that we will not invalidate an exercise of the police power “unless the * * * determination that the [regulation] bears a real and substantial relationship to public health, safety and welfare appears to be clearly

Ohio Neighborhood Fin., Inc. v. Scott (Slip Opinion)

139 Ohio St. 3d 536 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2014

The customer agreement established the following payment schedule: “One payment in the amount of $545.16 due on 12/19/08 (Payment Date).” … Conclusion {¶ 38} It is not the role of the courts to establish legislative policy or to second-guess policy choices the General Assembly makes. Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods.

Byrnes v. LCI Communications Holding Co.

77 Ohio St. 3d 125 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1996

The Barker analysis requires that the plaintiff-employee demonstrate “(1) that he was a member of the statutorily-protected class, (2) that he was discharged, (3) that he was qualified for the position, and (4) that he was … Thus, it is clearly erroneous to now “focus[] on the question of prima facie case rather than directly on the question of discrimination.”

Damm v. Elyria Lodge No. 465, Benevolent Protective Order of Elks

158 Ohio St. (N.S.) 107 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1952

An intention of the Legislature to abolish an established rule of the common law and to create a crime where none existed before, must clearly and unmistakably appear.” … The court held, as stated in the syllabus: “A parent in his business or vocational capacity is not immune from a personal-tort action by his unemancipated minor child.”

County of Miami v. City of Dayton

92 Ohio St. (N.S.) 215 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1915

Both state and federal courts are uniform in their holding that before a legislative act can be declared unconstitutional, it must be clearly in conflict with some provision of the constitution. … The Missouri statute contained this provision: “As soon as any drainage district shall have been organized under order of the circuit court, and a board of supervisors are elected and qualified, such board of supervisors

State v. Kinley

72 Ohio St. 3d 491 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1995

Other witnesses established that the copy of the tape was a true and accurate reproduction of Daniel’s emergency call to 911. … recording is a record or report that does not qualify under any exception to the hearsay rule.

State ex rel. Kenton Structural & Ornamental Iron Works, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

91 Ohio St. 3d 411 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 23, 2001

In that capacity, it chose not to attach undue weight to the qualifier “approximately.” The angle of the chains could not be determined with utter precision after the accident and will never be known. … Award Amount The amount of a VSSR award can vary from fifteen to fifty percent, inclusive, of the maximum award established by law. Section 35, Article II, Ohio Constitution.

Ritzman v. Campbell

93 Ohio St. (N.S.) 246 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1915

contention at once that Ohio is not to be classed with the supreme court of the United States, nor with the several states that have gone so far as to hold that the authentication of a bill in constitutional form renders a bill immune … From the doctrine thus established in Ohio the court is not now disposed to depart; indeed, it is quite willing to reiterate it as in all respects proper and in line with public policy.

State Ex Rel. Extendicare Health Services, Inc. v. Ryan

126 Ohio St. 3d 12 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2010

The self- insured review panel, on appeal, affirmed that reasoning and added: {¶ 8} “[T]he judgment entry establishes that Ms. … But this does not mean that all of Extendicare’s pre-opt-out expenditures qualify for reimbursement.

State Board of Health v. City of Greenville

86 Ohio St. (N.S.) 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1912

It is clearly an effort on the part of the legislature of the state to preserve and protect the public health and comfort, and the only remaining question for this court is, whether it clearly appears that this legislation … discretion by severity of penalty, and is therefore in conflict with Section 1 of Article XIV of the Constitution of the United States which provides: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

Wood v. Shepard

38 Ohio St. 3d 86 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1988

That is clearly not the case here. … Clearly, the majority resolves the question to be decided by assuming it.

Pollock v. Cleveland Ship Building Co.

56 Ohio St. (N.S.) 655 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1897

Clearly the term “easement of navigation,” should not be construed in any narrow, scientific sense, but, having in. mind that the reservation of the easement by the state is for the benefit of the public in its use of the … The carrying of lines across the river bank of plaintiff, presents a wholly different question Those acts invaded the real property of plaintiff the title to which is not qualified by any right in the public; it is absolute

Sicard v. Distributing Co.

133 Ohio St. 291 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1938

Whether there was privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant does not clearly appear. In using the hair dye on a customer plaintiff was injured by reason of its containing a poisonous substance. … There was no claim made that the witness was not qualified for want of education and experience as a chemist.

Linert v. Foutz (Slip Opinion)

149 Ohio St. 3d 469 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2016

And although Haskell acknowledged that the improved crimp could make the fuel tank more crashworthy in some accidents, he never quantified or qualified that possibility. … For purposes here, we accept that the seriousness of the harm was established at trial.

Bartholomew v. Bentley

1 Ohio St. (N.S.) 37 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1852

Jones, with eleven other persons, were chosen directors for one year; but it does not appear that they ever were qualified or accepted the appointment. … This is clearly proven by the affidavits of the defendants themselves, taken in another proceeding, and read in evidence upon the trial. M. D.

West Side Deutscher Frauen Verein v. Tracy

78 Ohio St. 3d 124 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1997

The issue for our consideration is whether appellant’s building addition which was not licensed by ODH until July 1992 qualifies for a tax exemption under R.C. 5709.12(B) for tax years 1991 and 1992. … Ohio Adm.Code 3701-17-03(E) clearly states that a license to operate a nursing home is valid only for the premises named in the application.

State v. Massien

125 Ohio St. 3d 204 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 5, 2010

agency, and establish an intervention plan for the offender. … individuals who occupy a special relationship of trust and confidence equivalent to a fiduciary relationship and whose offense relates to that fiduciary relationship prevents the disqualification of persons who are not clearly

State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose

170 Ohio St. 3d 374 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 28, 2022

Standard of review {¶ 10} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Maras must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) she has a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondents have a clear legal … In order to fail the rational-basis test, a classification adopted by the General Assembly must be “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable.”

State v. Monford

131 Ohio St. 3d 40 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 2011

. {¶ 13} The failure to address withdrawal of Monford’s NGRI plea does not fall into the limited class of cases that qualify as structural error. … “Such speculation is insufficient to establish ineffective assistance.” State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122, 2009-Ohio-6179, 920 N.E.2d 104, ¶ 217, citing State v.