Case law

State v. Reiner

89 Ohio St. 3d 342 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2000

a grant of immunity. … Hoffman, the United States Supreme Court noted that, “if the witness, upon interposing his claim [of privilege], were required to prove the hazard [of incrimination] in the sense in which a claim is usually required to be established

Rickenbacker Port Authority v. Limbach

64 Ohio St. 3d 628 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1992

Nor could the taxpayer qualify for exemption under the charitable use statute, since its general language could no longer be construed as applying to property for which specific criteria had been established. … Yet, R.C. 4582.46 clearly denies the tax exemption for properties owned by port authorities which are *632 leased for more than one year.

State v. VFW Post 3562

37 Ohio St. 3d 310 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1988

Clearly, the United States Supreme Court and courts applying the law as announced by the Supreme Court have established a strict but reasonable requirement that where the premises of a person operating a licensed business … Code 4301-.1-1-53 5 cause us to conclude that they are unconstitu *315 tional insofar as they fail to establish time, place, and scope limitations on warrantless administrative searches of liquor establishments by agents

State Ex Rel. Hoag v. Lucas County Board of Elections

125 Ohio St. 3d 49 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 13, 2010

The dispositive issue is whether Hoag has established that the board of elections abused its discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law by denying his protests based on lack of standing. {¶ 8} R.C. 3513.05 … Fornshell, 125 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-1175, __ N.E.2d __, ¶ 18. {¶ 13} Accordingly, Hoag did not meet his burden of establishing that the board of elections abused its discretion or clearly disregarded R.C. 3513.05

Hooven & Allison Co. v. Lindley

4 Ohio St. 3d 169 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1983

Although the Michelin court clearly felt no compunction in explicitly overruling Low v. … In Youngstown Sheet & Tube, supra, wherein guidelines for making such a calculation are established, Hooven I was explicitly distinguished.

Ohio Dental Hygienists Ass'n v. Ohio State Dental Board

21 Ohio St. 3d 21 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1986

The trial court was correct in ruling: “Clearly, the legislature intended that the delegation of procedures not specifically authorized be prohibited. … personnel, and may adopt rules establishing training and practice standards for qualified personnel; such standards may include examination and issuance of a certificate.”

Valentine v. Conrad

110 Ohio St. 3d 42 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2006

. {¶ 4} To establish that she qualified for workers’ compensation benefits, Valentine was required to prove that her husband’s illness was contracted in the course of his employment with PPG Industries. … Moreover, the credentials and experience of the witnesses clearly qualify them as experts under Evid.R. 702(B). In fact, the experience of Drs. Newton and Miner as Mr.

Columbus Steel Supply Co. v. Kosydar

38 Ohio St. 2d 258 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1974

The principles enunciated in May are clearly applicable to the items of pipe imported by appellant in this case. … commercial unit, or was sorted or segregated from other items comprising the commercial unit, the original package was broken or “opened.” 4 We recognize that the case law which embodies the original package doctrine has established

New Orphans' Asylum of Colored Children v. Board of Tax Appeals

150 Ohio St. 219 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1948

(2) Does the Board of Tax Appeals have jurisdiction to hear an application for exemption based upon immunity from taxation granted by a special act of the General Assembly (43 Ohio Laws, 101) ? … Prom the next above-cited authority, the principle is clearly established that the present use of the property controls its status with respect to exemption from taxation, and, even though such real property is owned by one

Snodgrass v. Testa (Slip Opinion)

145 Ohio St. 3d 418 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 24, 2015

None of these decisions establishes a right to the kind of relief sought here. … LMES was not shown to qualify as a “taxpayer” here {¶ 43} The record establishes that LMES in 1993 did not own any property used in business that would have been subject to the Ohio personal property tax.

Beifuss v. Westerville Board of Education

37 Ohio St. 3d 187 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1988

It is well-established that “[i]n the absence of a statute requiring it, or a *189 promise to pay it, interest cannot be adjudged against the state for delay in the payment of money.” State, ex rel. Parrott, v. … Carbone held in its syllabus that: “The defense of sovereign immunity is not available to a board of education in an action seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of the board’s employees.”

Disciplinary Counsel v. Maniscalco

1994 Ohio 142 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1994

Not only were the federal claims barred by res judicata, but "[s]imple research would have shown" their lack of merit: the mayor and prosecutor were clearly immune to suit under existing law, and Maniscalco had not "made … a good faith argument for modification of this immunity rule."

Mudrich v. Standard Oil Co.

153 Ohio St. 31 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1950

Ohio Edison Co., supra. *45 Mere negligence, as distinguished from wilful and wanton misconduct, does not forfeit the immunity of an invitee of the occupier of the premises as is clearly shown by the authorities hereinbefore … In other words, negligence in starting a fire does not establish liability for injury to one who attempts to put it out. 45 Corpus Juris, 794, Section 200; Lunt v.

State ex rel. Wellington v. Mahoning County Board of Elections

120 Ohio St. 3d 198 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 24, 2008

Aey has not established his eligibility to be a write-in candidate for sheriff. … There is no claim or evidence of fraud or corruption here, so Wellington must establish that the board of elections abused its discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law by denying his protest and certifying Aey’s qualifications

The State Ex Rel. Fockler Et Al. v. Husted

150 Ohio St. 3d 422 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 20, 2017

Therefore, the dispositive issue is whether *424 Husted abused his discretion or clearly disregarded the applicable law in determining that relators do not qualify as a political party. … Process for establishing a political party {¶ 10} R.C. 3517.01(A)(1) sets forth the process by which a group of voters may qualify as a political party: A political party within the meaning of Title XXXV of the Revised Code

Jones v. Franklin County Sheriff

52 Ohio St. 3d 40 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1990

After conducting a full evidentiary hearing, the ALJ concluded in his eighteen-page report and recommendation that the sheriffs department had established by greater than a preponderance of the evidence that Jones’s conduct … Thus the IAD, within clearly defined constitutional parameters, must be given latitude to conduct investigations to ensure the continued integrity of the department.

State ex rel. O'Neill v. Athens Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion)

160 Ohio St. 3d 128 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2020

O’Neill does not allege fraud or corruption, so the question is whether the board abused its discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law. … The board abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law when it rejected O’Neill’s petition on these grounds. 1.

Anderson/Maltbie Partnership v. Levin

127 Ohio St. 3d 178 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 12, 2010

The principle of strict construction requires that the statute’s language be construed against the exemption, meaning that the onus is on the taxpayer to show that the language of the statute “clearly expresses] the exemption … Ultimately, the dispute is inconsequential because the holding of Gerke clearly establishes that the schoolhouse itself cannot qualify for exemption unless it is used “without any view to profit.”

State Ex Rel. Popovici v. Agler

119 Ohio St. 484 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1928

That there are certain well-defined limitations and exceptions is fully established by the authorities. … We are of the opinion, however, that there is no such immunity in this character of controversy. The immunity exists, if at all, only by virtue of the constitutional provision and the acts of Congress relating thereto.

Vandemark v. Southland Corp.

38 Ohio St. 3d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1988

Therefore, with respect to this particular allegation, the employer is immune from suit pursuant to R.C. 4123.74. … Zimmerman offered his own dissenting viewpoint: «* * * [W]here an employee sustains an injury through the negligence or misconduct of his employer, which is clearly outside the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he