Case law

Neininger v. State

50 Ohio St. (N.S.) 394 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1893

have been conveyed, may be reformed, on the ground of mistake, and upon parol proof, by correcting misdescriptions, including lands omitted by mistake, enlarging or restricting the character of the estate, inserting or qualifying … Olmstead, 38 Conn., 309 , the court held that, “when the contract of a surety does not express the agreement or intention of the parties, to the injury of the obligee, and that is clearly made to appear, equity will reform

Sherman v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys. (Slip Opinion)

163 Ohio St. 3d 258 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 22, 2020

A statute will not be held to violate the Equal Protection Clause, and this court will not invalidate a plan of classification adopted by the General Assembly, unless it is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable … The government doesn’t even need to place any evidence in the record establishing the rationale for the classification. Heller at 319; Pickaway Cty.

Cent. Motors Corp. v. Pepper Pike

73 Ohio St. 3d 581 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1995

standard of review that in order to invalidate a zoning ordinance on constitutional grounds, the party attacking the regulation must establish, beyond fair debate, that the zoning classification denies the owner an economically … Municipal governing bodies are better qualified, because of their knowledge of the situation, to act upon these matters than are the courts. *** The legislative, not the judicial, authority is charged with the duty of determining

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Alsfelder

103 Ohio St. 3d 375 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 13, 2004

substantiate his billing practices. {¶ 23} The panel thus found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent had violated DR 2-106(A) (“A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly … He attempted to charge for his counsel in the manner that a therapist might, overlooking that an attorney, unless a qualified therapist, may no more engage in that profession than a therapist may practice law without a license

Industrial Commission v. Dell

104 Ohio St. (N.S.) 389 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1922

The section contains no qualifying words. No reasons are required to be stated, and it is only necessary that the change or modification may find justification in the opinion of the members of the commission. … Let us therefore suppose that an award had been obtained by the perjured testimony of a large number of witnesses and that each and all said witnesses later confessed to the perjury, thereby clearly establishing that the

Albright v. Albright

116 Ohio St. 668 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 25, 1927

The defendant in error contends that, in so far as the adoption established a status of relationship, the sections of the Revised Statutes apply hére. … Also the Albright will expressly qualifies the devise over to Isaac’s “legal representatives” with the phrase “of the Albright family.”

State v. Lessin

1993 Ohio 52 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1993

The trial court's statement is clearly error because it is in direct conflict with the holding in Texas v. Johnson. … It has been well established that the First Amendment does not afford protection to a person who screams "fire" in a crowded theater.

Sopkovich v. Ohio Edison Co.

81 Ohio St. 3d 628 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 13, 1998

For the reasons that follow, we answer the certified question with a qualified “yes.” … Additionally, the evidentiary materials clearly demonstrate that Ohio Edison did not participate in the actual work activities of the independent contractor.

State ex rel. Myers v. Meyers

169 Ohio St. 3d 536 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2022

. {¶ 30} Because the city invokes the CLEIR exception to disclosure here, it bears the burden of production “to plead and prove facts clearly establishing the applicability of the [exception].” Welsh-Huggins v. … Here, the city did not misunderstand Myers’s request; instead, it misunderstood its clearly established duties under R.C. 149.43.

National Cash Register Co. v. Cervone

76 Ohio St. (N.S.) 12 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1907

But, without' here entering upon a dis *23 cussion as to their soundness, we are of opinion that they lose sight of and override the effect of that rule of the common law, as well established as any other, that in the absence … of valid contract obligation or plain statutory provision to the contrary, ownership of property, whether it be absolute or qualified, carries with it the power of disposition, 'and this necessarily implies the acquisition

In re Election Contest of Dec. 14, 1999 Special Election

91 Ohio St. 3d 302 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 11, 2001

January Term, 2001 their vote, cast for a candidate or an issue, will not be disturbed except under extreme circumstances that clearly affect the integrity of the election.’ ” (Emphasis added.) … Dellas did not establish that the result of the special election was contrary to the will of the electorate.

Railway Co. v. Telegraph Ass'n

48 Ohio St. (N.S.) 390 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1891

Special privileges or immunities are under the control of the legislature. If granted, they may be altered, revoked,, or *432 repealed by the general assembly. Art. 1, see. 2, of the Constitution. … In view of these constitutional provisions, it is clearly within the power of the general assembly to authorize one class of corporations to use in the streets, electricity with the grounded circuit, as a motive power, and

Pennywit v. Foote

27 Ohio St. (N.S.) 600 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1875

It alleges the rebellion and war then existing, the army lines established, the President’s proclamation forbidding commercial intercourse, and that the people of Arkansas — including the judge of the court, the plaintiff … Its metEibers acted under color of office, by an election, though not qualified according to the requirements of the Constitution of the United States.

State v. Taylor

66 Ohio St. 3d 295 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 26, 1993

In this proposition, Taylor argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish the R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) death penalty specification attached to each count of aggravated murder. … This is the only way we can present evidence of prior calculation and design.” 3 Because we find that the proffered double hearsay testimony of Adams concerning McKissick’s statements to Adams did not qualify as an excited

Johnson v. University Hospitals

44 Ohio St. 3d 49 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1989

We reject the “no recovery” rule as being one that is clearly in conflict with the traditional concepts of tort law. … We are not qualified to judge whether a child might become President or a hopeless derelict. We cannot pretend to know what the future may hold — and neither can or may a jury!

Dillon v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc. (Slip Opinion)

145 Ohio St. 3d 133 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2015

Further, “we may not restrict, constrict, qualify, narrow, enlarge, or abridge the General Assembly’s wording.” State ex rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local School Dist. … In Connection with a Consumer Transaction {¶ 22} While R.C. 1345.01 establishes that transactions between insurance companies and their customers are not consumer transactions, our prior precedent establishes that an insurer

Bartchy v. State Board of Education

120 Ohio St. 3d 205 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 30, 2008

The petition complied with R.C. 3311.24(A)’s requirement that it must be “signed by seventy-five per cent of the qualified electors residing within” the portion of the property proposed to be transferred. {¶ 5} CPSD eventually … CPSD’s lack of specific evidence quantifying the harm *223 caused by previous transfers need not prevent the hearing officer from considering harm as a factor. {¶ 84} Evidence of such limited probative value on clearly secondary

State ex rel. Newell v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Elections

93 Ohio St. 3d 592 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2001

Newell contends that the board abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law, including R.C. 3501.38(E), by denying his protest and placing the issues on the November 6 ballot. {¶ 13} We need not address … 10  January Term, 2001 election falsification that he witnessed the affixing of every signature, that all signers were to the best of his knowledge and belief qualified

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Okuley (Slip Opinion)

166 Ohio St. 3d 191 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 21, 2021

Consequently, we reject the board’s finding that relator has established a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). … V(13)(C) are present and noted that although Okuley suggested that health issues may have contributed to some of his misconduct, he did not submit any evidence to establish those conditions as qualifying mitigating disorders

State ex rel. Manix v. Auditor

43 Ohio St. (N.S.) 311 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1885

No considerations of public policy, fraud, or abuse of discretion are shown to have intervened to impair or qualify this power. … Upon his refusal mandamus would clearly lie to compel his action. Such a proceeding would seem vain and idle.