Case law

Cleveland v. Trzebuckowski

85 Ohio St. 3d 524 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1999

Defendant does not assert that minors gather at billiard halls as “members of any organized association” or to “ ‘take positions on public questions,’ ” activities clearly protected by the First Amendment. … Likewise, meeting one’s friends at a billiard hall “qualifies neither as a form of ‘intimate association’ nor as a form of ‘expressive association’ * * *.”

State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.P. v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (Slip Opinion)

179 N.E.3d 1150 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 26, 2021

It is well established that records covered by the attorney-client privilege are not public records. State ex rel. Lanham v. … And the General Assembly’s use of that term does not clearly establish that most of DRC’s records that relate to inmates are exempted from Ohio’s Public Records Act.

State ex rel. Armatas v. Plain Twp. Bd. of Trustees (Slip Opinion)

163 Ohio St. 3d 304 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 8, 2021

Armatas sent an e-mail to the township’s administrator requesting “copies of any invoices for legal services performed for Plain Township by Baker, Dublikar[, Beck, Wiley & Mathews] with respect to” three township matters clearly … But even if OTARMA does not qualify as a public office under Brooks, that does not prevent the application of the quasi-agency test to documents in its possession that are “under the jurisdiction” of a township that is one

State Ex Rel. Heffernan v. Serp

125 Ohio St. 87 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1932

Said respondents accepted and qualified as such. … Manifestly the General Assembly has nothing to do with establishing distinctions between cities and villages, and the only test of whether a municipality is the one or the other is whether it has a population of more or less

General Industries Co. v. Leach

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 227 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1962

“An employee, in order to receive a weekly benefit, must file an application for each weekly benefit and qualify under the complicated terms of the act. … “Clearly, the Legislature has the right to amend or repeal this act at any time it may see fit to do so. The amendment in the instant case is prospective and not retrospective in character.

Smith v. Central Power Co.

103 Ohio St. (N.S.) 681 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1921

Some distinction is sought to be made between those uses which were under contemplation at the time the highways were established and those uses which have come into vogue long after such establishment, and some distinction … If this is true, the property owners are dearly entitled to have such pole removed in one direction or the other to permit the establishment of such way of ingress and egress, and mandatory injunction will clearly lie in

State ex rel. Copeland v. State Medical Board

107 Ohio St. (N.S.) 20 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1923

In considering this question it must be borne in mind that the state medical board has a most important function imposed upon it, that of safeguarding the public against the ministrations of those who are not qualified by … It is claimed by counsel that the affidavits attached to the petition, and which are made by express reference parts of the petition, must be taken by this court as evidence establishing the facts they contain, in the absence

Northwestern Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Conrad

92 Ohio St. 3d 282 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 18, 2001

Moreover, when the General Assembly established the HPP as part of Am.Sub.H.B. … “The recipients of the DWRF subsidy, namely those permanently and totally disabled employees who have previously been awarded workers’ compensation, are clearly members of this designated group.”

State ex rel. Welker v. Industrial Commission

91 Ohio St. 3d 98 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2001

Claimant argued that glasses, contacts, and corneal transplants were all corrective means, and since the first two clearly did not prohibit recovery, neither did a transplant. … At this time, however, claimant has not sustained the requisite loss to qualify for an award under R.C. 4123.57(B).

City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission

63 Ohio St. 2d 62 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1980

to leave the impression that even a minute quantity of electricity production will qualify a generating plant for inclusion in the rate base. … Herein, CEI established the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. Foundation, whose members were all either employed by or on the board of trustees of CEI.

State v. Conway

108 Ohio St. 3d 214 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 8, 2006

Plain error will not be found unless Conway establishes that the outcome of his trial clearly would have been otherwise except for the trial court’s alleged improper action of allowing the testimony. State v. … Conway has failed to show that the evidence sought to be elicited was clearly probative of Trent’s truthfulness or untruthfulness.

State v. Cook

65 Ohio St. 3d 516 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1992

While it is doubtful that appellant established even a prima-facie case, we need only decide whether the trial court’s decision that the prosecutor articulated sufficiently neutral reasons for the exclusion was clearly erroneous … We hold that the trial court’s ruling was not clearly erroneous.

Stickle v. Guardian Trust Co.

133 Ohio St. 472 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1938

This language does not import that such funds in the event of insolvency of the trust company shall be used primarily for any particular class of deposits where no right to a preference is otherwise clearly established. … Plaintiff can have no preferred claim in respect to these items, unless such preference is first clearly established as against general depositors.

State ex rel. Attorney General v. Seneca County Bank

5 Ohio St. 171 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1855

The expletive “ so,” employed in the last clause of that portion of the statute just quoted, is not without meaning, and it must be taken to apply to and qualify something in the clause of the statute immediately preceding … We are of opinion, then, that this clause of the statute clearly prohibits to the directors all loans and liabilities, in any amount whatsoever, until the action of the stockholders shall have intervened to limit, legalize

State v. Campbell

90 Ohio St. 3d 320 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2000

This omission clearly violated the requirements of Crim.R. 32(A)(1). … Smalldon was the expert psychologist, and he, not counsel, was qualified to decide when he had adequate information to make a diagnosis.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Buttars (Slip Opinion)

159 Ohio St. 3d 600 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2020

Although Buttars acknowledged that he had not established the existence of a mitigating mental disorder under Gov.Bar R. … Because the attorney had confessed to the misappropriation, seemed genuinely contrite, and had taken steps to resolve some addictive behaviors—although those behaviors had not qualified as a mitigating factor—we adopted the

City of Mansfield v. Balliett

65 Ohio St. (N.S.) 451 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1902

The statutory authority for this immunity, it is contended by counsel, is found in sections 2232 and 2370, of the Revised Statutes. … is obvious, that the government of no state can administer its public affairs in the most beneficial manner to the community at large, if it cannot, on particular emergencies and for public utility, exercise at least a qualified

State ex rel. Howard v. Chief Inspector's Office

2026 Ohio 1428 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 23, 2026

establishing the applicability of the exemption.” … To qualify as a security record under that definition, the record in question must “contain information directly used to protect 14  January Term

Municipal Court v. State ex rel. Platter

126 Ohio St. (N.S.) 103 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1933

And the action of the court after it had regularly pronounced the punishment provided by law for the offense is clearly obnoxious to the objection that it is an attempted exercise of power not judicial but vested in the executive … the following language by Chief Justice Hughes: “We are unable to approve the view that the court, although treating the statute as applicable despite the entrapment, and the defendant as guilty, has authority to grant immunity

State ex rel. Pontius v. Northern Ohio Traction & Light Co.

93 Ohio St. (N.S.) 466 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1915

Article I, Section 2, of that instrument provides that “No special privileges dr immunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by' the general assembly,” and Article XIII, Section 2, provides … the former case said: “When the grant was accepted and acted upon by the grantee it became a contract between the city and the telephone company, which could not *473 be revoked or repealed, unless the power to repeal was clearly