Case law

Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.

1992 Ohio 122 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1992

The agreement between CG&E and Oxford, which established the transportation rate between them, is authorized under R.C. 4905.31. … In this program, CG&E matched, one dollar for two dollars to a maximum of $75,000 per year, its customers' contributions to a fund which paid for the utility bills of qualified applicants.

Kain v. State

8 Ohio St. (N.S.) 306 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1858

Each of the above mentioned sections, it is seen, contains the word “ purposely ” as qualifying and characterizing the offense of killing. … But it is unnecessary to add, more than to say, we think this case falls clearly within the holding of the court in the ease of Jonas Fouts v. The State, reported in this volume, p. 98.

State ex rel. Marcolin v. Smith

105 Ohio St. (N.S.) 570 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1922

We can not enjoin the sovereign state of Ohio where the people have not in their constitution, clearly beyond reasonable doubt, limited the exercise of their power to legislate directly by the initiative.” … He must canvass the same and determine whether it has been signed by the requisite number of qualified voters and also whether it is in the form prescribed and is properly verified.

State v. Maurer

15 Ohio St. 3d 239 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1984

Appellant was clearly advised that the officers could not predict any outcome. … The court held that although the photographs were gruesome, their admission was not error in that they were properly identified, qualified and had probative value. Under Evid.

In re Bonfield

97 Ohio St. 3d 387 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2002

A plain reading of R.C. 3111.01 indicates that there are three ways a “parent and child relationship” can be established: by natural parenthood, by adoption, or by other legal means in the Revised Code that confer or impose … arrangement. {¶36} Although we have concluded that Shelly does not qualify as a parent pursuant to R.C. 3109.04, we, like the court of appeals, “do not intend to discredit

Summons v. State

5 Ohio St. 325 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1856

There are several well established exceptions to the rule that hearsay is not evidence. … The competency of such testimony, in criminal cases, is very clearly sustained by the weight of authority in England. In the case of The King v. Radburne, (1 Leach. C. C.

Shimko v. Lobe

103 Ohio St. 3d 59 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 25, 2004

excessive fee and providing standards for determining when a fee is clearly excessive), DR 2-106(C) (prohibiting contingent fees in criminal cases), DR 2-110(A)(3) (requiring a lawyer, upon withdrawing from employment, to … Co., Inc. (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 76, 81 , 545 N.E.2d 76 (Douglas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). {¶ 29} But the right of trial by jury under Section 5, Article I is still a qualified right.

State v. Jones

91 Ohio St. 3d 335 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2001

It is well established that “death- qualifying a jury ‘does not deny a capital defendant a trial by an impartial jury.’ ” State v. Dunlap (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 308, 315, 652 N.E.2d 988, 995, quoting State v. … The evidence produced at trial clearly established that the appellant committed the charged crimes.

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Lawson

119 Ohio St. 3d 58 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2008

Agreeing that his associate had tried to convert the contingent fee into an hourly fee, he also admitted during the panel hearing to a violation of DR 2-106(B) (precluding a lawyer from charging a clearly excessive fee). … And when the city experienced racial unrest, respondent provided invaluable assistance in establishing a collaborative relationship between police and the local African-American leaders.

State v. Cincinnati

52 Ohio St. (N.S.) 419 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1895

not declare a statute unconstitutional unless convinced that it is clearly so, we hold that the statute, in all respects, is constitutional and valid. 5. … provides that when the city desiring the annexation, determines in favor of the same, its mayor, and the mayors of the different municipal corporations sought to be annexed, shall each issue a proclamation, notifying the qualified

Columbus Southern Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

67 Ohio St. 3d 535 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1993

While the stipulation clearly permits recovery of AFUDC on the sunk costs remaining as of that date, it just as clearly conditions such recovery upon their subsequent proper accrual. … Further, the PUCO noted that the owner utilities announced on January 20, 1984 their decision to abandon Zimmer as a nuclear facility, and that they made only a qualified decision to convert the facility to a coal-fired plant

Painter v. Graley

70 Ohio St. 3d 377 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1994

The claim was that the number established by law was excessive and prohibited new parties and independent candidates from participating in elections. … Although we have never defined candidacy as a fundamental *391 right, we have clearly recognized that restrictions on candidacy impinge on First Amendment rights of candidates and voters.

Gillette v. Tucker

67 Ohio St. (N.S.) 106 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1902

This was fourteen months prior to the commencement •of this action, and on any tenable theory of the case the action was clearly shown to be barred by the statute of limitations. … These Ohio decisions have in no sense been qualified or departed from. There are several cases which so clearly illustrate the views which I have expressed above, that I calí es *137 pecial attention to them.

State v. Allard

75 Ohio St. 3d 482 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 22, 1996

Moreover, the evidence adduced at trial clearly established that appellant was unable to accept responsibility for his acts of violence. … Eisenberg testified that appellant’s marriage and relationship with Karen was bound to self- destruct, partially based on Karen’s personality disorders. {¶ 79} The evidence in mitigation clearly does not establish

Wessell v. Timberlake

95 Ohio St. (N.S.) 21 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1916

is further claimed that this act violates the provisions of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which reads in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities … It is established that a distinction in legislation is not arbitrary, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, and the existence of that state of facts at the time the law was enacted must

Garfield Heights City School District v. State Board of Education

71 Ohio St. 3d 590 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1995

R.C. 3311.24(A) establishes an orderly procedure to transfer territory between adjoining school districts. The steps to completing a transfer may be stated as follows. … The merits clearly dictated that the transfer of territory was in the best interests of all students involved.

Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Commerce

115 Ohio St. 3d 375 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 3, 2007

Furthermore, the court of appeals held that an injunction was appropriate because Ohio Pyro had established irreparable harm and had no adequate remedy at law. Id. at ¶ 29. … Before an Ohio court can consider the merits of a legal claim, the person or entity seeking relief must establish standing to sue. Ohio Contrs. Assn. v.

State ex rel. Herron v. Smith

44 Ohio St. (N.S.) 348 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1886

How far this pretended journal ■would establish it is not disclosed. … For the purposes of this case they stand as proved and established facts.

City of Rocky River v. State Employment Relations Board

43 Ohio St. 3d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 10, 1989

Such legislation would clearly have the effect of an amendment thereto. The more my brethren try to explain this concept the less one can understand it. … Would not maximum hour and minimum wage legislation qualify as being within the general welfare of employees, such that their mention in the provision is also “mere surplusage”?

State v. Slagle

65 Ohio St. 3d 597 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1992

We cannot say that the inclusion of such an instruction clearly would have changed the jury’s verdict. Appellant’s twelfth proposition of law is meritless. … Appellant’s counsel were both qualified criminal defense lawyers and neither failed in any essential duty. We cannot hold that appellant’s legal representation was inadequate.