Case law

State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion)

149 Ohio St. 3d 55 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2016

Before a jury, the state presented numerous witnesses establishing the facts. … McPherson stated that Jackson’s relationship with Roberts “was clearly a very destructive relationship.” Jackson received reassurance in this relationship, and he felt like he was “somebody special.” Dr.

Jordan, Ellis & Co. v. James

5 Ohio 88 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1831

Opinion of the court, by Judge Wright: On the trial of this cause, the following case was clearly made-out, in the mass of documentary and oral evidence given to the jury. … that of Putnam, or even purchased by Putnam, and consigned to the plaintiffs, and they, by contract, express or implied, were induced to •make advances for freight, insuranee, or otherwise, they would thereby acquire a qualified

State v. Dunlap

178 Ohio St. 3d 114 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 9, 2024

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 … That language supports the conclusion that when Officer Centrackio obtained further information establishing that the suspected crime that had given him reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop had not been committed, he

State v. Martin (Slip Opinion)

2017 Ohio 7556 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2017

Conclusion {¶ 74} Martin’s claims fail to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. In no claim has he shown that his trial counsel performed deficiently, nor has he established prejudice. … Coley, 93 Ohio St.3d 253, 270, 754 N.E.2d 1129 (2001). {¶ 130} To qualify as plain error, an error must be obvious. E.g., State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, 2006-Ohio-160, 840 N.E.2d 1032, ¶ 60.

State v. Sheppard

84 Ohio St. 3d 230 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1998

The defense must establish that an outside communication “biased the juror.” Id., citing State v. … Accordingly, appellant has not established that any prejudice resulted from this juror misconduct.

State v. Halczyszak

25 Ohio St. 3d 301 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1986

I am left with a conclusion that our three-prong test established in Williams continues to reflect the controlling law in this appeal and that the majority’s wholesale modification of our past rulings is unjustified. … Coolidge, Williams and Wilmoth , ruled at 1212 that “[t]he criminality of these vehicles was not ‘readily apparent’, and the vehicles had no connection with any crimes known to the police at the time of the search. * * * Clearly

State v. Hanna

95 Ohio St. 3d 285 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 22, 2002

.” {¶ 40} Appellant’s intent to kill Copas was clearly proved. … 381 N.E.2d 637 : “[O]ne who inflicts injury upon another is criminally responsible for that person’s death, regardless of whether different or more skillful medical treatment may have saved his life. • This rule has been qualified

State v. Knuff

175 Ohio St. 3d 82 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2024

Thus, “to the extent that Faretta addresses 18  January Term, 2024 timeliness, as a matter of clearly established law it can only be … X: Religious Freedom {¶ 111} Knuff’s tenth proposition of law is that the practice of death- qualifying prospective jurors violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the United

Allstate Insurance v. Campbell

128 Ohio St. 3d 186 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2010

also concluded that the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify in the underlying claim for emotional distress, noting that the behavior of the insured leading to the emotional distress “had its origin in a clearly … Our prior decisions have established the law of the doctrine of inferred intent, and the courts below applied it.

State v. Whitaker

169 Ohio St. 3d 647 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2022

But Whitaker argues that this court’s holding in Madison violates clearly established federal and state constitutional law. {¶ 137} Whitaker invokes Montejo v. … Kaplan testified that the DSM-5 shows that Whitaker does not qualify for a diagnosis of any paraphilic disorder (difficulty in controlling sexual impulses, voyeurism, flashers, etc.), including a pedophilic disorder (sexual

State v. McGuire

80 Ohio St. 3d 390 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1997

Ohio precedent is clearly against McGuire, so he again argues that appellate counsel may have abandoned a federal constitutional claim. … A capital defendant’s right to a reliable death sentence and to due process is also violated when the trial court death qualifies the prospective jurors.” {¶ 91} Proposition of Law Thirteen: “A capital defendant’s

DeRolph v. State

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

We have indicated our belief that the crafting of a new funding formula is clearly a legislative function. … We refuse to encroach upon the clearly legislative function of deciding what the new legislation will be.”

Adams v. DeWine (Slip Opinion)

167 Ohio St. 3d 499 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 14, 2022

These maneuvers are clearly not necessary for any reason other than partisan advantage. … The problem, though, is that this rule still fails to establish a benchmark.

State v. Maxwell

139 Ohio St. 3d 12 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2014

Failure to life-qualify prospective jurors {¶ 86} Maxwell argues that trial counsel were ineffective by failing to “life-qualify” a single prospective juror pursuant to Morgan v. … He was investigating a homicide and would have clearly expected his report to be used in a subsequent murder trial.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Gaul

175 Ohio St. 3d 12 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2023

and impartiality of the judiciary, see Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, and Gaul did not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, see Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d). {¶ 49} This is not to “imply that judges should be immune … This court also attributed some mitigating effect to Parker’s treatment for a diagnosed mental disorder, even though the disorder did not qualify as a mitigating factor under a provision similar to Gov.Bar R.

Snodgrass v. Harris

2024 Ohio 3130 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 20, 2024

Nexus owns and operates an interstate gas-transmission pipeline and qualifies as a public utility under R.C. Ch. 5727. … Adopting Nexus’s view would effectively nullify that right, which is contrary to established rules of statutory interpretation.

State v. Allen

73 Ohio St. 3d 626 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1995

Plain error occurs when, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly *635 would have been otherwise. State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 96-97 , 7 O.O.3d 178, 181 , 372 N.E.2d 804, 807-808 . … Permitting the jury to consider sympathy and mercy would violate the well-established principle that the death penalty must not be administered in an arbitrary, capricious or unpredictable manner. California v.

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 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.

Snodgrass v. Harris

176 Ohio St. 3d 394 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 20, 2024

Nexus owns and operates an interstate gas-transmission pipeline and qualifies as a public utility under R.C. Ch. 5727. … Adopting Nexus’s view would effectively nullify that right, which is contrary to established rules of statutory interpretation.

State v. Graham (Slip Opinion)

164 Ohio St. 3d 187 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 17, 2020

Despite these mental-health issues and despite the fact that Graham clearly had problems stemming from these issues, Graham did not receive treatment. Dr. … While these disorders do not qualify as mitigating under R.C. 2929.04(B)(3), see State v.