Case law

Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., Et Al.

149 Ohio St. 3d 512 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2016

In addition to the non-use, there must be acts or circumstances clearly manifesting an intention to abandon the easement. … Secrest, 153 Ohio St. 553 , 93 N.E.2d 1 (1950) (same). {¶ 95} However, in all of these cases, the qualifying event that triggered the “deemed” result was typically simple to establish, its occurrence was uncontested, and

State v. Clark

137 Ohio St. 3d 346 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2013

of Edn., 102 Ohio St.3d 205, 2004-Ohio- 2491, 808 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 30, we noted that R.C. 2151.421 imposes mandatory reporting duties on teachers and others listed in the statute because they are among the “most likely and qualified … This was not a police interrogation Teachers are not law enforcement and these teachers did not question L.P. at the direction of law enforcement {¶ 73} The teachers were clearly

Ohio Grocers Assn. v. Levin

123 Ohio St. 3d 303 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 17, 2009

Applicable Principles {¶ 15} Our decisions establish three fundamental principles that govern our analysis. {¶ 16} First, it is permissible to tax the privilege of doing business, and to do so, the privilege … State (1916), 94 Ohio St. 24, 27, 113 N.E. 654, paragraph two of the syllabus (“An excise tax is a tax assessed for some special privilege or immunity granted, * * * and in the case of a corporation, it is sometimes spoken

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Cary

28 Ohio St. (N.S.) 208 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1876

Any language, clearly manifesting the legislative intent,, whether in general terms or by special enactment, is sufficient. Angel & Ames on Corp. … It was a legislative authority for a foreign corporation to-become an Ohio corporation by lease or purchase from a domestic corporation, its charter and property, with all its powers, immunities and privileges.

State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. LaRose

175 Ohio St. 3d 320 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2023

Relators Brock, Edwards, and Tavenor are Ohio residents and qualified electors who likewise oppose S.J.R. 2’s proposed amendment. … The proposed changes to Article II, Section 1g, would significantly increase the burden of gathering the necessary signatures for citizen-initiated proposed amendments to qualify for the ballot, and they would eliminate the

State v. Conway

109 Ohio St. 3d 412 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2006

Thus, plain error is absent because the outcome of the trial would not clearly have been different with a more precise instruction. See State v. … Conway claims that James’s testimony established that Conway murdered Dotson to escape detection for committing a felonious assault on James.

State v. Robb

88 Ohio St. 3d 59 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 29, 2000

As the state points out, testimony from the first two witnesses established the conspiracy. … The statement did not qualify as former testimony, Evid.R. 804(B)(1), since it was not taken in a hearing or at a deposition, nor did an opportunity exist for cross-examination.

State v. Stallings

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

As we discuss below, we find that no alleged deficiency clearly caused a different trial result or created a manifest miscarriage of justice. … Additionally, defendant has clearly had previous opportunities to remove himself from gang activities.

State v. White

85 Ohio St. 3d 433 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 12, 1999

Ellison (Tenn.1992), 841 S.W.2d 824, 827. “ ‘A single invidiously discriminatory act’ is not ‘immunized by the absence of such discrimination in the making of other comparable decisions.’ “ Batson, 476 U.S. at 95, 106 S.Ct … Payne clearly allows such testimony when the crimes are so interrelated that victims are affected by more than just the capital death.

State v. Mammone (Slip Opinion)

139 Ohio St. 3d 467 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 14, 2014

To prevail on plain-error review, Mammone must establish both that misconduct occurred and that but for the misconduct, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise. State v. … Accordingly, he cannot establish ineffective assistance in this regard. c.

Mannix v. Purcell

46 Ohio St. (N.S.) 102 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1888

The other properties held and used for ecclesiastical purposes — asylums, schools, cemeteries (with the qualifying facts found by the court below concerning the property represented by the St. … Joseph's Cemeteries to the payment of creditors, believing that these are quite clearly shown to be trust property, and that they did not pass to the assignee by the assignment.

Lewis v. Trimble

79 Ohio St. 3d 231 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1997

In using the term “additional” to qualify the term “condition,” the court misspoke. An additional condition is different from a residual or flow-through condition. … This would in no small way disrupt the manifold rules that this court has carefully established to facilitate the orderly and fair administration of justice. See State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v.

DeRolph v. State

89 Ohio St. 3d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 11, 2000

Additional costs may be incurred in establishing appropriate scientific laboratories and in hiring more teachers, especially those qualified to teach mathematics and science courses. … Instead, we clearly state that in order to have a thorough and efficient system of schools, there must be statewide standards that are fully *34 developed, clearly stated, and understood by educators, students, and parents

Gries Sports Enterprises, Inc. v. Cleveland Browns Football Co.

26 Ohio St. 3d 15 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1986

Through its unfounded, conclusory treatment of both facts and applicable law, the majority has improperly established the intrinsic fairness inquiry as the threshold question for application of the business judgment rule. … The quotation of such language by the majority must therefore be qualified since the case here had neither a takeover nor a derivative suit by minority shareholders for more money.

Vance v. Roedersheimer

1992 Ohio 89 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1992

In that case we held: "This court has consistently limited the categories of expenses which qualify as 'costs.' … must have originated in the common pleas court before Loc.R. 2.53 becomes effective and, therefore, there cannot be an "appeal" from a court to itself; and finally, that since the rule provides for a "de novo trial," that clearly

Denison University v. Board of Tax Appeals

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 429 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1962

There is no presumption in favor of the exemption of property from taxation, and before such exemption is authorized the right thereto must be established by evidence, the burden of producing which is, of course, upon the … , General*Code (Section 5709.12, Revised Code), and that property belonging to a public college, academy or institution of learning not publicly owned must be “used exclusively for a *441 charitable purpose” in order to qualify

Cleveland, Columbus & Cincinnati Railroad v. Keary

3 Ohio St. (N.S.) 202 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1854

Such a servant had no clear right of action for a moderate correction by his master — in some instances, that exercise of authority was clearly lawful. … On the other hand, a wise and salutary maxim seems; to establish the right as I believe it to exist.

State v. Garrett

171 Ohio St. 3d 139 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 30, 2022

Now, there’s a big qualifier in there, if believed by you. … Clearly, this evidence establishes that Garrett “lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of [his] conduct or to conform [his] conduct to the requirements of the law,” R.C. 2929.04(B)(3). {¶ 350}

State v. Fitzpatrick

102 Ohio St. 3d 321 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2004

Fitzpatrick’s counsel informed the court that Fitzpatrick had taken a medication that “helps him actually to think more clearly and to sleep better.” … of factual guilt and which do not stand in the way of conviction if factual guilt is validly established.”

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. {¶ 32} 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).