Case law

State v. Ballew

76 Ohio St. 3d 244 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1996

Ballew failed to establish that his counsel’s performance fell “below an objective standard of reasonable representation.” State v. … Thus, Ballew failed to establish prejudice as Strickland requires. We reject Proposition of Law VIII.

State v. Morris

2026 Ohio 1519 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2026

The people of Ohio established the appellate jurisdiction of this court, and the people— through constitutional amendments and by acting through the General Assembly— established the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of … Because that’s not me’—was an unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel under clearly established law.”) {¶ 137} In my view, the interrogation should have ended then.

Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Winkfield

107 Ohio St. 3d 360 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 11, 2006

. {¶ 27} After the divorce was final, respondent promised to prepare and file the qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”) under which his client would be entitled to a share of her ex-husband’s retirement benefits. … from his trust account for his personal use. {¶ 34} The board found that respondent had thereby violated our order suspending his license and also violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 2-106(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from charging a clearly

In re Estate of Centorbi

129 Ohio St. 3d 78 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 18, 2011

. {¶ 11} We have consistently recognized that it is the General Assembly’s role to consider and establish limitations periods, see, e.g., Leininger v. Pioneer Natl. … 7.0 may not meet all of the requirements set forth in R.C. 2117.061(D) because it does not require the listing of decedents’ assets and does not contain a warning that falsification could result in criminal penalties, it clearly

Worthington City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision

124 Ohio St. 3d 27 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 17, 2009

As for the recency of the sale, the BTA confined itself to stating in a footnote that a sale eight months before the lien date for tax year 2004 qualified as recent. … Our review of the record persuades us that Weber Sisters failed to establish the existence of an estoppel. {¶ 24} The scope of collateral estoppel in tax proceedings is limited.

State ex rel. Price v. Columbus, Delaware & Marion Electric Co.

104 Ohio St. (N.S.) 120 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1922

Section 3 provides: “Said grantee in the future shall conform its tracks and grades to any new grades that may be established by the county commissioners,” etc. *129 Section 4: ‘ ‘ Simultaneously with the removal of said … Our state constitution, Section 2, Article I, provides that: “No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the general assembly.”

State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson

70 Ohio St. 3d 420 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1994

We also recognize that the qualifying words of the rule, “and which are material to the preparation of his defense,” are used by some prosecuting attorneys to defeat rule-authorized discovery by a defendant. … We deviated from this well-established and workable rule in Humphry v. Riverside Methodist Hosp. (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 94 , 22 OBR 129, 488 N.E.2d 877 , and State v.

State v. Dickerson

77 Ohio St. (N.S.) 34 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1907

Efforts to qualify witness were pursued, and finally the following question was permitted and answered: Q. … It clearly appears from all the evidence that the criminal transaction occurred in the state of Ohio.

State v. Johnson

128 Ohio St. 3d 153 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2010

as the commission of child abuse resulted in Milton’s death, thereby qualifying as the commission of felony murder. … I write separately because I do not believe that the majority opinion clearly sets forth the appropriate considerations for determining whether offenses arise out of the same conduct and should be merged pursuant to R.C.

State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst.

224 N.E.3d 1086 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 12, 2023

She bears the burden of persuasion to establish her entitlement to the writ by clear and convincing evidence. See State ex rel. Penland v. … claiming that the records d[id] not exist” and the relator “ha[d] not done anything to rebut that affidavit so as 17  SUPREME COURT OF OHIO to clearly

Dayton Supply & Tool Co. v. Montgomery County Board of Revision

111 Ohio St. 3d 367 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 29, 2006

Spendthrift Farm, Inc. (1995), 514 U.S. 211, 239 , 115 S.Ct. 1447 , 131 L.Ed.2d 328 . {¶ 61} This court has clearly and consistently held since 1997 in Sharon Village and in other later cases that a nonattorney may not prepare … a corporation to maintain litigation and appear in court represented by corporate officers or agents only would lay open the gates to the practice of law for entry to those corporate officers or agents who have not been qualified

Sutowski v. Eli Lilly & Co.

82 Ohio St. 3d 347 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1998

Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 33} As Goldman clearly illustrates, market-share liability does not eliminate the need for proof of proximate causation. … The right-to-remedy clause has been turned on its head and the majority has effectively given these defendants the equivalent of a common-law right-to-immunity.

State ex rel. Horvath v. State Teachers Retirement Board

83 Ohio St. 3d 67 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1998

Accordingly, we begin with a presumption that, absent a clearly stated intent to do so, statutes do not create contractual rights that bind future legislatures. Id. … In our previous discussion, we established that a contractual relationship between Mrs.

Jones v. Kirbreth

49 Ohio St. (N.S.) 401 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 10, 1892

Kilbreth was appointed, and qualified as trustee for the creditors of the Trust Company, and took charge of its property and assets in trust for the uses and purposes for which the first appointed trustees had held and administered … But, the creditors could not, with a show of equity, ask that the proceeds of a draft, clearly indentified as not the property of the Trust Company but of Fosdick, be applied to swell the trust fund for their benefit.

State v. Green

1993 Ohio 26 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1993

In this case, Green clearly had the right to impeach Coulter by cross-examining her about prior statements. … The evidence clearly established she was chemically dependent on marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol and had been so dependent for years. With an IQ of 66, she functioned only very marginally. Dr.

Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Evatt

143 Ohio St. 71 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1944

Section 1464-2, General Code, provides in part: "The Board of Tax Appeals and the Tax Commissioner shall have the following powers, duties, privileges and immunities of the Department of Taxation: "1. … It is not enough to establish a denial of equal protection that some are assessed at a higher *Page 97 valuation than others.

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Mayer

28 Ohio St. (N.S.) 521 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1876

The difference between a direct tax on an article of commerce, and a tax on the company carrying, by taxing its property, franchises, or business, is clearly shown by the «case of The Reading R. R. Co. v. … They are not citizens, within the meaning of the federal constitution, “ entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”

State ex rel. Ware v. Kurt

169 Ohio St. 3d 223 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 18, 2022

The court, however, did not identify the “other records” that it qualified as “court records” under Sup.R. 44(B). … After the Modern Courts Amendment, “the right to establish the substantive law in Ohio remained with the legislative branch of government.” Havel v. Villa St.

State v. Loza

71 Ohio St. 3d 61 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1994

Fisher is clearly outside the holding of Crane . … Greene was a qualified expert document examiner.

State v. Eley

77 Ohio St. 3d 174 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1996

Id., syllabus. 17  In this case, Belinky, as county coroner, was clearly qualified to testify as an expert when he observed the autopsy performed on the victim. … None of these statements constituted plain error, since they were clearly not outcome-determinative. Long, supra.