Case law

State v. Sneed

63 Ohio St. 3d 3 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1992

Appellant has failed to meet his burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel under the standards enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. … “Proposition of Law No. 19: The non-neutrality of death qualified juries violates a capital defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a jury that is fair and impartial and reflects a fair cross-section of the community

Levi v. Earl

30 Ohio St. (N.S.) 147 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1876

This learned author says that when the court of chancery thus established that the wife might have a separate estate, it clearly violated the .laws of property as between husband and wife, bpt it accorded with popular feeling … which the law has established for regulating the enjoyment of ■property in other eases.”

State v. Loza

1994 Ohio 409 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1994

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

Cass v. Dillon

2 Ohio St. (N.S.) 607 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1853

authorize the county of Muskingum to subscribe to the capital stock of the Cincinnati, Wilmington and Zanesville Railroad Company, upon the condition that such subscription should be first approved by a majority of the qualified … A majority of the court having come to the opposite conclusion —a result, in my judgment, subversive to a great extent of the principles and policy established by some of the most important provisions of the constitution,

State v. Campbell

90 Ohio St. 3d 320 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2000

. {¶ 24} This omission clearly violated the requirements of Crim.R. 32(A)(1). … That is clearly wrong.

League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. (Slip Opinion)

167 Ohio St. 3d 255 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2022

What I do, what I am sure in my heart is that this committee could have come up with a bill that was much more clearly, clearly constitutional. … The evidence discussed above establishes that the violation of Section 3(B)(2) is so significant that it clearly meets the standard for the remedy set forth in Article XI, Section 9(D)(3)(c).

State v. Hill

64 Ohio St. 3d 313 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1992

However, we believe this mitigating factor is clearly outweighed by the aggravating circumstances of the case. … “Who does this Court feel is more qualified? Mr. Dehus or Mr. Gelfius on the charcoal lighter as to paint thinner and hydrocarbons? I thought that his testimony was much more credible. I don’t feel Mr.

State v. Hill

75 Ohio St. 3d 195 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1996

Schmidtgoessling’s testimony fails to establish any significant mental state entitled to mitigating weight. … However, no evidence established that he suffered from any mental problems at the time of the offense.

Bloom v. Richards

2 Ohio St. (N.S.) 387 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1853

This seems clearly to allow' *348 that the making of a bargain is not “ work: ” or “ labor,” according to the proper signification of those words. … The court decided against the validity of the contract, -saying that “ no case could be more clearly a matter of business within the statute.”

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Heller (Slip Opinion)

165 Ohio St. 3d 329 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 1, 2021

Notwithstanding that fact, he did not present any evidence necessary to establish that his addiction qualified as a mitigating factor under Gov.Bar R. … Schuman, 152 Ohio St.3d 47, 2017-Ohio-8800, 92 N.E.2d 850 (attorney made false statements and submitted a fraudulently altered document in order to collect a clearly excessive guardian-ad-litem fee); Disciplinary Counsel

Teegardin v. Foley

166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 449 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1957

Well, the rates are pretty well established. I don’t know ivhether you would say that I fix them, or the finance companies fix them. “Q. Well, is there— A. … General Assembly, however, in enacting legislation requiring retail automobile dealers and financial institutions to be licensed under separate laws and answerable to separate state agencies, has, without being arbitrary, clearly

Weidman v. Hildebrandt

2024 Ohio 2931 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2024

Therefore, adoption of the single- publication rule here would change established Ohio law. … Shaver, 149 Ohio St. 231 (1948), paragraph five of the syllabus (“A statute’s wording ‘“may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or abridged . . . .”’”). {¶ 110} R.C.

McAllister v. Hartzell

60 Ohio St. (N.S.) 69 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1899

Also evidence by defendant to establish her defense of the statute of limitations. … This is a simple, easily understood test, and we believe is not only within the letter, but clearly within the spirit, of the statute.

State v. Montgomery (Slip Opinion)

148 Ohio St. 3d 347 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2016

I will say that I have been in [the judge’s] courtroom before during proceedings when he is clearly paying attention at that phase. … The defense also established that many of Montgomery’s nonparental family members continue to love, support, and care for him.

State ex rel. Allen Cty. Children Servs. Bd. v. Mercer Cty. Common Pleas Court, Probate Div. (Slip Opinion)

150 Ohio St. 3d 230 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 20, 2016

Shaver, 149 Ohio St. 231 , 78 N.E.2d 370 (1948), paragraph five of the syllabus (statutes “may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or abridged; significance and effect should, if possible, be accorded … and those finalizing a juvenile court’s judgment, clearly extended the juvenile court’s exclusive jurisdiction through to the end of the juvenile court’s adjudication process. 10 At that point, the juvenile court has continuing

Wilkins v. Tobacco Insurance

30 Ohio St. (N.S.) 317 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1876

Any modified or qualified acceptance was not binding on Pyne, unless he assented to the same. Parsons on Mer. Law, ch. 11 sec. 11; Chitty on Contr. 11-20. … Clearly this clause relatesto the mode and manner of navigating the vessel within the permitted waters.

W. E. Anderson Sons Co. v. Local Union No. 311

156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 541 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1952

The union established a picket line at his place of business. … balance between the constitutional protection of the element of communication in picketing and the power of the state to set the limit of permissible contest open to industrial combatants. ’ ’ The court’s conclusion is clearly

State ex rel. Horvath v. State Teachers Retirement Bd.

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.

State v. Richey

1992 Ohio 44 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 11, 1992

A behavior or personality disorder does not qualify as a mental defect or disease. State v. Cooey; State v. Van Hook, supra. … It is this last part of the analysis which most clearly reveals how inappropriate the death penalty is in this case.

State v. Lundgren

73 Ohio St. 3d 474 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1995

However, "'[a] change of venue rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, and *** appellate courts should not disturb the trial court's [venue] ruling *** unless it is clearly shown that the trial court has abused … Given that Lundgren's statement was nearly five hours long and both counsel referred to it in argument, we find that the members of the jury clearly understood, as instructed, that they could consider the statement in mitigation