Case law

State v. Hill

75 Ohio St. 3d 195 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1996

Prospective juror Marianne Lewis was properly excused for cause, and the trial court used the correct constitutional standard to death-qualify the jury. See Wainwright v. … Schmidtgoessling’s testimony fails to establish any significant mental state entitled to mitigating weight.

Kohl's Illinois, Inc. v. Marion Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)

140 Ohio St. 3d 522 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 8, 2014

With respect to the allegation of conflict between Sections 3.1 and 3.2, the BTA found that “the provisions that clearly specify prohibitions against real property tax valuation contests should control over the more general … Second, no argument has been advanced that the no-contest covenant qualifies as a covenant that runs with the land under the pertinent case law.

Ohio Historical Soc. v. State Emp. Relations Bd.

1993 Ohio 182 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1993

The board establishes the terms of the director's employment. (4) The wages, terms, and conditions of employment of all employees are set by the board. (5) The Society is, in part, self-supporting. … This case clearly presents those proper circumstances.

State v. Sage

31 Ohio St. 3d 173 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1987

Clearly, the Harrington test has been met in this case. There was sufficient evidence without Mrs. … The verdict of the jury is supported by sufficient evidence establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Walsh v. Miller

51 Ohio St. (N.S.) 462 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1894

“It is enough in any written contract that the intent of the party clearly appear, though it be not fully and particularly expressed.” Partridge v. Jones, 38 Ohio St., 377 . … And as tending to establish that position, it is said the statute is a transcript of a New York statute, which had there received that construction before its adoption in this state. The cases of Bank v.

State v. Henness

79 Ohio St. 3d 53 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1997

She then testified to what appellant told Fair, which clearly was not privileged. Appellant did not specifically object to the above testimony. … His criminal record is significant and, thus, fails to qualify as a mitigating factor under R.C. 2929.04(B)(5).

State ex rel. Ottinger v. B&B Wrecking & Excavating, Inc.

175 Ohio St. 3d 186 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 2, 2024

Clear Mistake of Law {¶ 27} A clear mistake of law exists when it is “of such character that remedial action would clearly follow.” State ex rel. Rodriguez v. Indus. … CONCLUSION {¶ 35} For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Ottinger has failed to establish a clear legal right to the relief requested.

Stivison v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

80 Ohio St. 3d 498 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1997

The issue in this case is whether Stivison’s broken nose and arm qualify as injuries “received in the course of, and arising out of,” his employment. … Therefore, cases allowing recovery for off-site injuries based on established exceptions are inapposite here. Stivison also argues that Ryan v.

Federal Gas & Fuel Co. v. City of Columbus

96 Ohio St. (N.S.) 530 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1917

The constitutional convention of 1912, in protest of that order, abolished by constitutional amendment general-assembly rule of municipalities, and sought to establish home rule. … Bear in mind that there is no qualifying word modifying the word “restriction.”

State v. Pribble (Slip Opinion)

2019 Ohio 4808 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 26, 2019

Neither party argues that R.C. 2925.041(C)(1) fails to establish that legislative intent. … It also places the weight of inertia upon the party that can best induce Congress to speak more clearly and keeps courts from making criminal law in Congress’s stead.

Lee v. Sturges

46 Ohio St. (N.S.) 153 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1889

Intent to confer immunity from taxation must be clear beyond a reasonable doubt, for, as in case of a claim of grant, nothing can be taken against the state by presumption or inference. … Such company must establish a principal office within the state, and suits may be brought against it in the courts of the state as against other companies.

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bahan (Slip Opinion)

169 Ohio St. 3d 188 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2022

justify its holding that attorney speech may be restricted just because it is disrespectful to a court, the majority reaches back to 1871 and suggests that what is “most important[]” is dicta from a case dealing with judicial immunity … That message may not have much impact on attorneys like Bahan, but it is likely to be heard loudly and clearly by others who are more cautious.

State v. Gumm

73 Ohio St. 3d 413 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1995

Gumm's argument is defeated by the precedent established in State v. … and background provide modest mitigating features. {¶ 69} With respect to the relevant statutory mitigating factors of R.C. 2929.04(B) raised by the defense, Gumm's brain dysfunction and mental retardation do not qualify

Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth.

78 Ohio St. 3d 353 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 14, 1997

Technical terms will be given their technical meaning, unless a different intention is clearly expressed. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. … According to Enviresponse, we must “establish[] constructions of the second and final paragraphs of the Unit Prices Attachment A that [give] ‘meaning and purpose’ *** to both paragraphs.”

In re Application of Buckeye Wind, L.L.C.

131 Ohio St. 3d 449 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 6, 2012

The wind farm’s expected generation capacity exceeded 126 megawatts, qualifying it under R.C. 4906.01(B)(1) as a “major utility facility” that required the approval of the board. … The board followed statutory requirements in establishing each one.

State v. Bryan

101 Ohio St. 3d 272 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 17, 2004

Such evidence clearly established his intent to kill Niedhammer. State v. … Moreover, counsel did not need to request the trial court to define “mitigation” during the death qualifying process (X).

Pickaway County Bank v. Prather

12 Ohio St. (N.S.) 497 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1861

There is perhaps more doubt as to this proposition than attaches to the one we have just considered; but before a contract can be avoided on this ground, the public policy which it violates must be clearly manifest. … Justice and sound policy, however,' would seem to require, that no other or greater privileges and immunities should be accorded to such corporations, than are granted, in similar cases, to the domestic institutions of the

State v. Raglin

83 Ohio St. 3d 253 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1998

However, appellant never claimed that the shot had been accidentally or unintentionally fired, and the evidence clearly establishes that the shooting was not accidental or unintentional. … Burch clearly testified in mitigation that, in her opinion, appellant suffers from a mental disease or defect.

State v. Cox

87 Ohio St. (N.S.) 313 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1913

A careful analysis of this indictment, against which the motion to quash is directed, clearly shows that this motion does not present the question sought to be raised by the tenth ground thereof. … falsely; and thereby prevents an indictment being returned against himself for the crime-which is the subject of the inquiry before the grand jury, and having so accomplished his purpose by false and perjured testimony, is immune

State v. Carter

72 Ohio St. 3d 545 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1995

. {¶ 7} Medical testimony established that Messinger was killed as a result of a bullet wound which entered her forehead slightly left of the midline. … Carter argues that allowance of more than six peremptory challenges is constitutionally required in order to assure a qualified and unbiased jury.