Case law

State ex rel. State Fire Marshal v. Curl

87 Ohio St. 3d 568 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2000

Court Rule 62 provisions to hold, as we do here, that the governmental entity appealing the civil judgment was entitled to a stay pending appeal as a matter of right without posting a supersedeas bond: “This rule clearly … His response was to file the action now before that Darst was other than a qualified applicant for transfer of license, and no reason for denial of transfer was offered except for the moratorium and the effect of the Caccavello

Ohio State Building & Construction Trades Council v. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners

98 Ohio St. 3d 214 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2002

Congress has established in the NLRA a comprehensive and integrated regulatory framework. … Lockridge (1971), 403 U.S. 274, 288 , 91 S.Ct. 1909 , 29 L.Ed.2d 473 . {¶ 49} Nevertheless, Congress has neither exercised its full authority to occupy the entire field in the area of labor relations nor clearly delineated

State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Phillips

46 Ohio St. 2d 457 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1976

When the circumstances clearly establish that the judicial process will be subverted by an open pretrial hearing, appropriate action should be taken by a couri to preserve the integrity and fairness of such judicial process … WHIO has not demonstrated enough journalistic competence to qualify for making judgments on others.

State v. Grad

2024 Ohio 5710 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 9, 2024

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed. 2022-Ohio-4221 (9th Dist.). {¶ 4} In this appeal, we consider when medical studies published after a defendant’s convictions may qualify as newly discovered evidence under … And clearly, a trial court presented with a motion for leave must withhold its decision on the merits of the motion for a new trial.

DeRolph v. State

93 Ohio St. 3d 309 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2001

Clearly, when a case is properly before the court for review and final determination, we as judges are not at liberty to ignore our obligations. … We have indicated our belief that the crafting of a new funding formula is clearly a legislative function.

Columbus Bar Ass'n v. American Family Prepaid Legal Corp.

123 Ohio St. 3d 353 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 14, 2009

XVI(5)) as a “bona fide organization that recommends, furnishes, or pays for legal services to its members or beneficiaries,” a requirement that extended to “qualified legal assistance organizations providing prepaid legal … We rejected the argument that the use of the review attorneys to supervise this activity immunized the advisors from culpability for the unauthorized practice of law.

State v. Jones

51 Ohio St. (N.S.) 492 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1894

The legislative power will generally be deemed ample to authorize the enactment of a law, unless the legislative discretion has been qualified or restricted by the constitution in reference to the subject matter in question … The capital stock is clearly not the same as property possessed by the corporation; for the capital stock remains fixed although the actual property of the corporation varies in value and is constantly increasing or diminishing

Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)

162 Ohio St. 3d 231 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 26, 2020

Appellees urge this court to not immunize at-will employers from invasion-of-privacy claims “just because other judge-made rules” have given employers the “privilege” to perform workplace substance-abuse testing. … Their choice of the words “good faith efforts” establishes that they did not refuse to provide a urine sample, but consented and were unable to produce a urine sample within the time frame of the policy.

State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion)

154 Ohio St. 3d 542 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2018

The majority further explained that Miranda only applies to admissions made to officers of the law or their agents, that a person must act “under the direction or control of a law enforcement agency” to qualify as an agent … Although the statutory scheme and the way it operates clearly establish a cooperative relationship between children’s services agencies and law enforcement, whether a social worker acted as an agent of law enforcement when

Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ironics, Inc. (Slip Opinion)

168 Ohio St. 3d 467 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2022

We apply the plain meaning of the policy’s language “unless another meaning is clearly apparent from the contents of the policy.” Galatis at ¶ 11, citing Alexander v. … Peritz, Law and Practice of Insurance Coverage Litigation, Section 35:3 (July 2021), quoting Robert Keeton, Insurance Law, Section 5.4(a), at 288 (1971) (“ ‘A requirement that loss be accidental in some sense in order to qualify

State v. Grad

178 Ohio St. 3d 58 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 9, 2024

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed. 2022-Ohio-4221 (9th Dist.). {¶ 4} In this appeal, we consider when medical studies published after a defendant’s convictions may qualify as newly discovered evidence under … And clearly, a trial court presented with a motion for leave must withhold its decision on the merits of the motion for a new trial.

Taylor v. First Resolution Invest. Corp. (Slip Opinion)

148 Ohio St. 3d 627 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2016

50  January Term, 2016 {¶ 120} Turning to the current case, the last activity on the account was a $50 payment by Taylor Jarvis on June 28, 2006, which qualifies … But the decedent never established that the 2006 date was the date the cause of action accrued, and she never established that FRIC’s assertion that the cause of action accrued in 2005 was erroneous.

State v. McKnight

107 Ohio St. 3d 101 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 30, 2005

Such a generalized assertion does not qualify as the “particularized showing” required by Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144 , 694 N.E.2d 932 , syllabus. … Clearly, no prejudice resulted. Accordingly, we find that proposition XVI has no merit. {¶ 206} Defendant’s absence.

State v. Dunlap

2024 Ohio 4821 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 9, 2024

In addition to being illogical, Lewis’s answer was clearly untrue given that the officer had just said that Dunlap’s license was not currently valid. … In so holding, this court reasoned that such checkpoints advance the state’s interest in “ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles and hence that licensing requirements are being

State v. Green

90 Ohio St. 3d 352 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2000

To qualify for the death penalty under R.C. 2929.04(A)(7), the defendant must be the principal offender (“the actual killer,” State v. … The trial court clearly erred in not explicitly asking Green, in an inquiry directed only to him, whether he had anything to say before he was sentenced.

Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co.

1993 Ohio 134 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1993

Because Debbie Savoie is only an insured in one of these policies, she does not qualify to stack the limits. The holding of the court of appeals on the issue of stacking is affirmed. … State (1922), 105 Ohio St. 535, 138 N.E. 63, paragraph four of the syllabus (invalidating an Act purporting to establish a time limit within which a court of appeals had to perform a judicial function); Rockey v. 84 Lumber

State ex rel. Byington Builders, Ltd. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)

156 Ohio St. 3d 35 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2018

The first sentence of this rule clearly requires employers whose employees are engaging in construction activity on qualifying roofs to install catch platforms. … A VSSR award is a penalty imposed on an employer, id., and we have explained that specific safety requirements must establish “ ‘specific and definite requirements or standards of conduct * * * [that] are of a character plainly

Grant v. Administrator of Ludlow

8 Ohio St. (N.S.) 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1857

I am clearly of opinion that late sales will be the best, but if I can’t hold on, I must sell early.” … I leave that case, therefore, with this additional remark, that it clearly does not settle any leading principle, and most certainly does not unsettle old and well established principles; and in neither event, as I must say

State v. Bey

85 Ohio St. 3d 487 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 19, 1999

Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 3 OBR 360, 444 N.E.2d 1332 , syllabus (The “failure to object to a jury instruction constitutes a *498 waiver of any claim of error * * * unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly … Although he had no mental disease or defect qualifying under R.C. 2929.04(B)(3), he suffered from long-term depression and had a serious personality disorder with antisocial and paranoia features.

State v. O'Malley

169 Ohio St. 3d 479 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2022

Further, although his vehicle was clearly of value and was important to him, he did not demonstrate that the loss of this vehicle would be significant. … “The factual findings made by the [trial] courts in conducting the excessiveness inquiry, of course, must be accepted unless clearly erroneous.