Case law

State v. Keene

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

But this crime was clearly introduced for a valid purpose having nothing to do with appellant’s character. … Appellant claims his personality disorder and his PTSD qualify under this factor. We disagree. A personality disorder is not a “disease or defect.”

Baily v. Smith

14 Ohio St. (N.S.) 396 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1863

answer asserting his title, the defendant, Smith, in the sense of the commercial rule, was a bona fide holder of the *398 note, without notice of the equities existing between the original parties ; and, second, that the immunity … The ground upon which the rule has always been defended, very clearly shows that it can have no application to such cases.

Wills v. Cowper & Parker

2 Ohio 123 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1825

Contracts may be made in person, or by an agent, and we have no established exclusive form of creating an agency. It is not necessary that it should be created or executed within the state. … Formal and technical words are dispensed with when the intent can be clearly collected. 1 Fonb. 442. In Osgood v.

Steele v. Hamilton Cty. Community Mental Health Bd.

90 Ohio St. 3d 176 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 18, 2000

Gonzalez (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 136, 17 OBR 281, 477 N.E.2d 1145 (setting out the test for establishing the tort of lack of informed consent); In re Milton (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 20, 29 OBR 373, 505 N.E.2d 255 (holding that … This type of intrusion clearly compromises one’s liberty interests in personal security, bodily integrity, and autonomy. {¶ 20} The intrusion is “particularly severe” when the medications administered by force are

Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. CompManagement, Inc.

111 Ohio St. 3d 444 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 6, 2006

Disagreement among relator, respondents, and amici curiae as to the interpretation of that Resolution also does not establish unworkability. … As with direct examination, the acts of the CMI representatives that the board qualified as indirect cross-examination require no actual legal skill or training.

State v. Eley

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

Id., syllabus. {¶ 40} 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.

Portage County Board of Commissioners v. City of Akron

109 Ohio St. 3d 106 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 6, 2006

Clearly the General Assembly, the EPA, ODNR, the parties, and other municipalities and communities have common and opposing interests that this court is not equipped to negotiate, because our role is to adjudicate legal issues … The trial court also rejected the following defenses, which are not at issue in this appeal: sovereign immunity, accord and satisfaction, the equitable defense of unclean hands, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Savage v. Correlated Health Serv., Ltd.

1992 Ohio 6 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1992

Schulze stated, in part: "I'm an orthopedic [surgeon] and questions that may be asked within the realm of my care of the patient and orthopedic care of the patient in general, I would be qualified to answer that." … Schulze clearly testified at voir dire that he did not form certain opinions until the day trial began. Moreover, Dr.

State ex rel. Goldberg v. Mahoning Cty. Probate Court

93 Ohio St. 3d 160 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 5, 2001

Goldberg must establish that (1) Judge Maloney and the probate court are about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denial of the writ will cause injury … Clearly, the actions of the Probate Judge resulted in the issuance of an unconstitutional prejudgment order of attachment.”

Railway Co. v. Gardner

45 Ohio St. (N.S.) 309 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1887

It is quite clearly apparent that the court, in the case last cited, was dealing with the subject of “ noises, smoke, vapor or other discomforts ” upon the assumption that they were such inconveniences as the public at large … Indeed, there is no assurance that he may have an intelligent opinion of the value of the land affected either before or after such location, except that he has qualified himself, in the opinion of the court, as a witness

Chadwell v. Cain

169 Ohio St. (N.S.) 425 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1959

The language of the applicable statutes at that time clearly required the decision arrived at. See, also, the case of McGonnigle v. Arthur, 27 Ohio St., 251 . … In the KaJile case, the only official action to be taken was by the clerk or city auditor in certifying a petition to the board of elections, but the principle established in that case has recently been approved and *436

State v. Adams (Slip Opinion)

144 Ohio St. 3d 429 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 1, 2015

Duncan, 435 F.3d 186, 198 (2d Cir.2006). {¶ 161} The trial court clearly rejected Adams’s Batson challenges as to both prospective jurors after permitting the parties to make a record. … After police officers interviewed Tenney’s friends, Adams would have been clearly on their radar as a suspect.

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.

Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

96 Ohio St. (N.S.) 414 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 29, 1917

It will suffice to say that the authorities clearly establish the doctrine that an owning and operating railroad may give trackage rights to another carrier over a part of its line, where such a. *430 grant does not impair … C, 519, 531, this Commission said that the rights of the lessee with respect to the leased line 'are not the general rights of a common carrier upon its own road, but are limited and qualified by the agreement.

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Levin

128 Ohio St. 3d 68 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2010

affirmed and noted: “While a purpose of the [Kentucky tax statute] might have been to aid the cable industry rather than the satellite industry because the former has a larger in-state presence than the latter, there were clearly … Seelig, Inc. (1935), 294 U.S. 511, 527, 55 S.Ct. 497, 79 L.Ed. 1032 (the power to tax may not be used to establish “an economic barrier against competition with the products of another state or the labor of its residents”

In re Application of Oak Run Solar Project, L.L.C.

2026 Ohio 1849 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 26, 2026

See Alamo Solar at ¶ 16; Firelands Wind at ¶ 15. {¶ 15} A board decision is “unreasonable when the evidence clearly does not support it or when [the] decision is internally inconsistent.” … Oak Run does not dispute the eventual construction of these structures and instead argues that such structures do not statutorily qualify as “facilities,” an argument that we reject.

State ex rel. Munding v. Industrial Commission

92 Ohio St. (N.S.) 434 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1915

There are no qualifying words whatever. The board’s duty, after finding the existence of de *439 pendents, is but to make a calculation. It is entirely without discretion in the premises. … dependents and of granting power to the board to change awards so long as any part of- it remained unpaid, by rejecting Section 20 of the act proposed by the majority and by accepting Section 33 of the minority measure, clearly

Thomas v. Logue

174 Ohio St. 3d 66 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 3, 2023

Yosowitz’s medical review would clearly have been required to be borne by the BWC. {¶ 11} R.C. 4123.931(A) provides BWC’s right to subrogation: 9 … That is, the BWC must ensure that qualified claimants do not have their claims disallowed simply because they were unable to muster sufficient credible evidence to support their claims on initial review.

State v. Nicholson

176 Ohio St. 3d 181 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 22, 2024

Thus, Nicholson cannot establish deficient performance. 4. … Nicholson has not established that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. 4.

State v. Gonzales (Slip Opinion)

150 Ohio St. 3d 261 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 23, 2016

Chandler, 109 Ohio St.3d 223, 2006- Ohio-2285, 846 N.E.2d 1234, syllabus. {¶ 35} The General Assembly specifically used the language “grams of cocaine” without any further qualifiers. … “It is not the role of the courts ‘to establish legislative policies or to second-guess the General Assembly’s policy choices.’ ” Stetter v. R.J.