Case law

State v. Buell

22 Ohio St. 3d 124 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1986

reasonable doubts as to its accuracy, and such identification is crucial to a closely balanced prosecution, expert testimony on eyewitness identification is admissible under Evidence Rule 702 so long as (1) the expert is qualified … Sims is clearly distinguishable. The factors presented in that case, i.e., improper subject, expert’s lack of familiarity with the facts, and no precedent, are not present herein.

State v. Campbell

1994 Ohio 492 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1994

The officer was not qualified to render such an opinion, and we think it likely that this experienced trial judge understood that. … Further, the judge said: "It must be established * * * that at the time in question there was present in the mind of the defendant a specific intention to kill Henry Turner * * *." (Emphasis added.)

Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co.

144 Ohio St. 195 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1944

Bolles trust No. 331 remained, as apparently it was his intention for it to so remain during his lifetime, wholly inadequate for the purpose for which it was established. … E., 251 : “The courts cannot, by means of any real or imagined equities, limit, qualify or annul rights granted by legislative enactment. * * * [page 173] It is of no consequence that he [the husband] may not have intended

State v. Filiaggi

86 Ohio St. 3d 230 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1999

The trial panel clearly expressed what its responsibilities were regarding the findings it needed to make. … We conclude that the evidence clearly showed that defendant did not suffer from any mental diseases that would qualify for the insanity defense under Ohio law and that the defendant knew the wrongfulness of his conduct.

In re Complaint of Reynoldsburg

134 Ohio St. 3d 29 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 15, 2012

The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the PUCO’s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence or is clearly unsupported by the record. … If the statute qualifies as a general law under this test, the final step is undertaken to determine if the ordinance is in conflict with the statute. Am. Fin. Servs. Assn. v.

State v. Iacona

93 Ohio St. 3d 83 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2001

He gave a qualified answer that, as far as he knew, no culture had been conducted. … The report was clearly Brady material.

State v. Kinley

72 Ohio St. 3d 491 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1995

Other witnesses established that the copy of the tape was a true and accurate reproduction of Daniel's emergency call to 911. … 911 tape recording is a record or report that does not qualify under any exception to the hearsay rule.

State ex rel. Ohioans for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Bd.

174 Ohio St. 3d 285 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 19, 2023

And the committee submitted the petition to the secretary of state’s office with sufficient signatures to qualify for the November ballot. … But this argument does not establish that the ballot board’s language constitutes improper persuasion.

Columbus Southern Power Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.

1993 Ohio 67 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1993

Clearly, the PUCO did not order the "adjustment" (or phase-in) because the Zimmer valuation under R.C. 4909.15(A)(1) was unrepresentative. … 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.

State v. Keene

81 Ohio St. 3d 646 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 13, 1998

The court had ample grounds to do so; Cherry admitted his opinion was “really not well established.” … Appellant claims his personality disorder and his PTSD qualify under this factor. We disagree. A personality disorder is not a “disease or defect.”

Ish v. Crane

13 Ohio St. 574 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1862

While the general rule is recognized, the exception is pretty clearly intimated. … Page & Bacon, 17 Missouri, 234, are at least sufficient fairly to establish such a conflict.

State v. Harrison (Slip Opinion)

166 Ohio St. 3d 479 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2021

A law enforcement officer’s reliance on an arrest warrant that is not signed pursuant [to] Criminal Rule 4 does not qualify for the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. … The lead opinion states that the argument was not clearly presented until briefing before this court, which is a fair characterization,7 and “[a]s a general rule, this court will not consider arguments that were not raised

Faith Ranch & Farms Fund, Inc. v. PNC Bank, Natl. Assn.

2026 Ohio 1145 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 2, 2026

But the next year we qualified that conclusion and explained that the phrase “other minerals” may, but does not necessarily, include oil and gas. Detlor v. … Taken as a whole, the language of the reservation—including the words mine, mining, and vein— establishes an intent to exclude oil and gas from the reservation. See O’Bradovich, 2021-Ohio-1287, at ¶ 26 (7th Dist.)

Willis v. Braucher

79 Ohio St. (N.S.) 290 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1909

The administrator, also, before the purchase advised with a lawyer of the Canton bar of high standing (one who had means of knowing the character and market value of the bank’s stock and well qualified to give a legal opinion … case out of the operation of the statute, and that the provision of the will, not being contrary to any positive rule of law, must prevail; that the intent of the testator as to authority of his trustee to make investments clearly

State v. Smith

80 Ohio St. 3d 89 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1997

The United States Supreme Court laid out the rationale most clearly in Ross v. … The trial court correctly ruled that the tape qualified as an excited utterance and did not constitute inadmissible hearsay.

Zanesville, Marietta & Parkersburg Railroad v. Bolen

76 Ohio St. (N.S.) 376 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1907

The former was an action against the city for damages for injuring property by reason of the lowering of the established street grade in front of it. … The implication clearly follows that the jury intended is a constitutional jury of twelve corhpetent. men, and their conduct to be directed by a court.

State v. Iacona

93 Ohio St. 3d 83 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2001

The state established that the baby was found dead, wrapped inside a towel having been placed within two white plastic bags, then covered by a blanket. … Moreover, it is well established that the state has no duty to explain the significance of disclosed evidence. In State v.

MB West Chester, L.L.C. v. Butler County Board of Revision

126 Ohio St. 3d 430 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 19, 2010

Second, the order affects a substantial right 4  January Term, 2010 because it “qualifies as an order that ‘if not immediately appealable … First, MB West Chester itself failed to name the school board when it filed its notice of appeal, an omission that clearly contravenes Ohio Adm.Code 5717-1-04(B) and (E).

Coe v. Columbus, Piqua & Indiana Railroad

10 Ohio St. (N.S.) 372 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1859

So far as the railroad company itself is concerned, it is entitled to no special immunity in this respect as to its creditors; and as to .any inconvenience to the public by temporary or permanent cessation of its business … To receive and enjoy, in common, grants of privileges and immunities.” Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend. 71 . Each of these applies to the corporation under consideration.

State v. Jackson

107 Ohio St. 3d 53 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 23, 2005

Thus, Heile established that one of the weapons used in the shootings was a .380 automatic pistol. … Moreover, the fact that defendant bears the burden of establishing juror partiality, see Wainwright v.