Case law

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

Cincinnati Fed. S. & L. Co. v. McClain (Slip Opinion)

168 Ohio St. 3d 123 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 15, 2022

But it can be clearly implied, no less than clearly expressed, and the terms of the exception ought to be reasonably, rather than strictly, construed. … But this simply means that the taxpayer bears the burden to establish that a sales transaction is nontaxable. Basic Inc. v.

State v. Bloomer

122 Ohio St. 3d 200 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2009

Thus the statute did not codify any procedure established by this court. … immunity for athletic coaches, [and] actions by a roller skater with supporting affidavits in a medical claim.”

State v. Harrison

122 Ohio St. 3d 512 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2009

The court further established that Harrison could appeal any resentencing and even suggested that defense counsel’s argument was “not without merit.” {¶ 26} Later, Special Prosecutor Scott A. … Clearly, it did not. Harrison had served his sentence, and the case was over. The entire attempt at resentencing and the related plea withdrawal were nullities.

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 v. Biros

78 Ohio St. 3d 426 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 14, 1997

Clearly, appellant was not in custody at the time he admitted his involvement in Tami’s death. … Thus, we find that appellant has failed to meet his burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel under the standards set forth in Strickland v.

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

State ex rel. Williams v. Industrial Commission

116 Ohio St. (N.S.) 45 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1927

Three members of the court, to-wit, Judges Allen, Jones and Matthias, are of opinion that the act is valid under the general provisions of Section 35, Article II, of the state Constitution, and that the amended act is clearly … “It is established by a series of cases that an ulterior public advantage may justify a comparatively insignificant taking of private property for what, in its immediate purpose, is a private use.” Noble State Bank v.

Anderson v. Barclay's Capital Real Estate, Inc.

136 Ohio St. 3d 31 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 14, 2013

. {¶ 39} To summarize the foregoing language, the statute establishes that a consumer transaction includes transactions that involve the provision of goods, services, or intangibles to individual consumers for personal, family … HomEq’s services clearly do not fit within any of the exceptions articulated in R.C. 1345.01.

State v. City of Toledo

48 Ohio St. (N.S.) 112 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1891

Under the authority given by this act, and in pursuance of ordinances passed hy its common council, the city of Toledo — after submitting the question to a vote of the qualified electors of the city, and thereby obtaining … Commissioners of Clinton County, 1 Ohio St. 77 , that any act passed by the general assembly not falling fairly within the scope of “ legislative authority,” is as clearly void as though expressly prohibited.

Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Co. v. Wachter

70 Ohio St. (N.S.) 113 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1904

Nor does the paragraph of the release releasing damages which might arise by reason of the location or construction or repair of the work qualify, or in any way affect, this legal conclusion. … This was, however, after the enactment of the fencing statute of March 25,1859, and is. clearly referable to the compulsory duty by that statute enjoined and does not indicate a claim of adverse-possession.

State ex rel. Attorney General v. Jennings

57 Ohio St. (N.S.) 415 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1898

Applying what has been said to the case before us, and it clearly appears, as we think, that the fireman, other than the chief, employed by the council under the ordinance of June 23, 1897, are not public officers. … It is true that, in this instance, it is made the duty of a city to keep its streets in repair and free from nuisances, whilst, in this state, it is not required to establish á fire department.

In re Adoption of Greer

70 Ohio St. 3d 293 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1994

of the adoption petition or placement of the child. *302 Ill Although we resolve this case on the basis of statutory construction, we would be remiss were we not to advise the probate courts of this state as to what has clearly … time as the probate adoption forms may be reviewed or amended, we strongly urge the bench and bar of this state to revise or adapt those forms as may be appropriate when prepared for delivery to unwed putative fathers not qualifying

Rossman v. McFarland

9 Ohio St. (N.S.) 369 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1859

In that case, a mortgagor who had been qualified and had acted as executor of the mortgagee, had failed to pay the debt while in office, and the court permitted a foreclosure of the mortgage after his removal, at the suit … of an administrator de bonis non; thus showing, clearly, that the debt was not discharged by his appointment to and acceptance of the trust, and was not, in equity at least, to be regarded as paid.

State v. Grevious

172 Ohio St. 3d 171 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 9, 2022

For this court to find R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) unconstitutional, Grevious must establish “beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation and constitutional provisions are clearly incompatible,” State ex rel. Dickman v. … We explained that R.C. 2953.08 clearly “does not establish the only avenue by which a party may appeal a sentence” (emphasis sic), Patrick at ¶ 15, and that, in fact, R.C. 2953.02 also provides a statutory right to appeal

Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Levin

117 Ohio St. 3d 122 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 14, 2008

Under Columbia’s interpretation, all pipeline companies would automatically qualify as Ohio natural gas companies simply by transporting gas to an LDC’s distribution facility. … The BTA failed to consider R.C. 5727.02, which establishes a primary-business test for purposes of R.C. 5727.01.

Williams v. Scudder

102 Ohio St. (N.S.) 305 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1921

training.were highly necessary, and that the time had gone when any person had the right to assume that he could skillfully exercise the healing art, advertise to such effect, and induce the public to believe he was so qualified … wise and salutary policy, that before persons shall engage in certain occupations that require special expert knowledge, training and experience, and as to which the general public have little or no knowledge, they must qualify

State Ex Rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Board

133 Ohio St. 3d 257 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 12, 2012

{¶ 23} For the remaining requirements of clear legal right and clear legal duty, in the absence of any evidence of fraud or corruption, the dispositive issue is whether the ballot board abused its discretion and clearly … In essence, the omission in the ballot’s board’s condensed ballot language of the qualifying limitations on commission funding is in the nature of a persuasive argument against its adoption.

Westfield Insurance v. Hunter

128 Ohio St. 3d 540 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 20, 2011

This is particularly true when considering provisions that purport to limit or qualify coverage under the policy. Am. Fin. Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. … That it occurs upon the premises does not establish a causal connection between the bite and the premises.”

Gaston v. Medina County Board of Revision

133 Ohio St. 3d 18 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2012

Although he does not explicitly raise the jurisdictional issue, Gaston’s argument clearly implicates the holding of Knickerbocker. … Because she had not conducted the study, the witness was unable to explain (1) why the 2005 sale price was used instead of the 2006 one (which was closer to the lien date) and (2) how the sales would qualify as arm’s-length