Case law

State ex rel. Nelsonville v. Athens Cty. Bd. of Elections

2025 Ohio 4363 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 17, 2025

Therefore, the relevant inquiry is whether the board abused its discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law by refusing to remove the statutory offices from the ballot. {¶ 30} The majority of Nelsonville’s brief … Ch. 3513], or any other requirements established by law.” R.C. 3501.39(A)(4); see also Bender at ¶ 8.

State v. Jones

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

The evidence produced at trial clearly established that the appellant committed the charged crimes. … This evidence clearly establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant killed Officer Glover with prior calculation and design.

State v. Mundt

115 Ohio St. 3d 22 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 3, 2007

Based on this record, Mundt has not established deficient performance on the part of defense counsel. {¶ 67} Nor has he established prejudice. … Further, he has not demonstrated that the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise but for the error.

Neuro-Communication Servs. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

171 Ohio St. 3d 606 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2022

According to Neuro, this statement makes clear that a loss that does not involve a physical alteration of a building can qualify as a covered “loss.” … This court already has a well-established body of jurisprudence on basic contract interpretation.

Penrod v. Ohio Department of Administrative Services

113 Ohio St. 3d 239 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2007

However, the ALJ’s recommendation was based on her view that no evidence was presented regarding the efficiency of the office before the abolishment and that DAS’s evidence going to efficiency following the abolishment clearly … Furthermore, DAS did not meet its burden of establishing that efficiency was the reason for the abolishment.

In re Bonfield

96 Ohio St. 3d 218 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 28, 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. {¶33} 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 [appellants’] goal of providing a stable

State ex rel. Roadway Express v. Indus Comm.

82 Ohio St. 3d 510 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1998

.2d 46 (“Eaton I”), reconsidered and modified on other grounds (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 106, 541 N.E.2d 64, denounced this policy because it paid TTD to claimants whose conditions were no longer temporary and, thus, did not qualify … To establish this affirmative defense and defeat Roadway’s claim for relief, the commission must prove material prejudice — Roadway’s unexplained or unreasonable delay in asserting a right is not enough.

State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion)

2019 Ohio 4761 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2019

- sentencing review, R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 both clearly apply only to individual sentences. … This language is consistent with our precedent establishing that “[a] sentence is the sanction or combination of sanctions imposed for each separate, individual offense.” (Emphasis added.) State v.

State v. Sharp

162 Ohio St. (N.S.) 173 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1954

It has been held that a transcript of interviews conducted by a prosecuting attorney with prospective witnesses is simply a memorandum in his hands and is immune from inspection by an accused. In State v. … In that case a state witness gave evidence at the trial tending to establish the guilt of the accused.

City of Cleveland v. Clements Bros. Construction Co.

67 Ohio St. (N.S.) 197 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1902

And such clearly is the established law of this and other states. … One of these is the establishment of municipal corporations.

State v. Lawrence

44 Ohio St. 3d 24 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1989

Further, such an instruction would ensure that Ohio jurors clearly understand that they are to consider all mitigating evidence in reaching their sentencing recommendation. … Again we stress that a defendant need not establish the requisites to an insanity defense to have his mental condition considered in mitigation.

State v. Twyford

94 Ohio St. 3d 340 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 6, 2002

In any event, Carpenter and Buckmelter clearly indicated a partiality towards imposing death in all cases of murder, and both were excused for cause. Therefore, we find no error. … Clearly, it is improper for a prosecutor to comment on the defendant’s failure to testify. Griffin v. California (1965), 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 ; State v.

Canton Storage & Transfer Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

72 Ohio St. 3d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1995

judgment for that of the commission on factual questions where there is sufficient probative evidence in the record to show that the commission’s order is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence and is not so clearly … Thus, any qualified carrier could obtain a statewide certificate and compete on equal footing.

State v. Stallings

89 Ohio St. 3d 280 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2000

court improperly “excused for cause jurors who expressed] reservations about capital punishment but did not excuse for cause jurors who expressed very strong feelings in favor of capital punishment.” *287 However, death-qualifying … Moreover, defendant has not established that the trial court abused its broad discretion.

City of Elyria v. Meacham

113 Ohio St. 138 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1925

Another set of civil engineers, equally as well qualified as those employed by the city and the railroad company in this case, might have drawn plans for a bridge of a different character to serve the purposes in hand. … against the city in the event that they found the piers to be a nuisance. *151 The evidence not only fails to prove that this structure constituted a nuisance in the public street, but the very great weight of the evidence clearly

State v. Johnson

88 Ohio St. 3d 95 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 29, 2000

These facts clearly support his convictions. … Witt (1985), 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841, to death-qualify the jury. Appellant’s argument is misplaced. {¶ 97} In State v.

Piqua Branch of the State Bank v. Knoup

6 Ohio St. (N.S.) 342 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1856

No other courts but these are mentioned in this article; and clearly none other could have been in-contemplation. … There is clearly nothing here conferring upon the Supreme Court of the United •States the important power in question.

Wightman v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

86 Ohio St. 3d 431 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1999

constitute behavior qualitatively different from that which may be characterized as merely negligent” and, therefore, contributory negligence is not available as a defense where-conduct in conscious disregard, has been established … Berg did not qualify as an expert under Evid.R. 702.

State v. Schiebel

55 Ohio St. 3d 71 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1990

In his motion, Schiebel argued that the alleged juror misconduct qualified as newly discovered evidence within the meaning of Crim. R. 33(B). … In order to permit juror testimony to impeach the verdict, a foundation of extraneous, independent evidence must first be established.

State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus.Comm.

69 Ohio St. 3d 202 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 4, 1994

Clearly, once a worker has been declared permanently and totally disabled he or she is incapable of returning to work. … Thus the commission implicitly decided then that the C-174 forms were insufficient to establish herniated disc as an allowed condition.