Case law

State v. Kassay

126 Ohio St. 177 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1932

There is no constitutional immunity for such conduct abhorrent to our institutions. Gitlow v. New York, supra; Whitney v. California, supra [ 274 U.S. 357 , 47 S.Ct., 641 , 71 L.Ed., 1095 ]. … Our forefathers, when they established this experiment in democracy, made ample provisions for changing our present form of government and establishing a new political system by constitutional processes.

Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc.

82 Ohio St. 3d 367 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1998

Together, these statutes accord qualified immunity to unpaid athletic coaches and sponsors of athletic events. … Clearly, without the work of its volunteers, these nonprofit organizations could not exist, and scores of children would be without the benefit and enjoyment of organized sports.

State ex rel. Allen v. Warren County Board of Elections

115 Ohio St. 3d 186 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 17, 2007

forms that relators completed contained no declaration that they were unaffiliated with any political party. {¶ 3} Relators also satisfied the R.C. 1901.06 statutory qualifications to be a municipal court judge — each is a qualified … Bd. of Elections (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 164, 165 , 602 N.E.2d 613 . {¶ 21} Based on the foregoing, relators have established that they are entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus.

State ex rel. Spencer v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections

2026 Ohio 966 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2026

Because the Stark County board did not abuse its discretion or clearly disregard applicable law in denying Spencer’s protest, we deny the writ. I. … The secretary determined that Owens did not qualify for the ballot, because his petition lacked enough valid signatures.

Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Maybaum

112 Ohio St. 3d 93 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2006

. {¶ 31} Clearly, protecting clients from attorney misconduct is paramount. … V(10)(E)(2) and submit a report from a qualified mental-health professional establishing that he has successfully completed a treatment program, that he is continuing treatment, and that he can, to a reasonable degree of

Visintine & Co. v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Rd.

169 Ohio St. (N.S.) 505 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1959

Even though the state, because of governmental immunity, can not be sued for its failure to perform those duties, the duties nevertheless existed. … of the fact that the state is immune from suit for any alleged violations of the duties it assumed under its contract with plaintiff.

In re Establishing the Solar Generation Fund Rider

169 Ohio St. 3d 740 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 7, 2022

H.B. 6 established a “nuclear generation fund” that would allow for total disbursements of $150 million annually to qualifying nuclear generators and a “renewable generation fund” that would allow for annual disbursements … of $20 million to “qualifying renewable resource” facilities.

Rowe-Reilly Corp. v. Tracy

85 Ohio St. 3d 625 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1999

Moreover, appellant’s sales catalogues clearly indicate that the inventory items in question were intended to be used in the construction, operation, and repair of greenhouses. … In fact, the BTA indicated that some of appellant’s inventory, specifically heating, ventilation, and shading equipment, may qualify as “equipment” if the evidence established that it was designed and built for agriculture

Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

75 Ohio St. 3d 312 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1996

This conclusion of the majority is clearly in error. It is interesting that the plurality does not say whether Gladon was a licensee or a trespasser while he was lying on the tracks. … Clearly, that illustration differs dramatically from the facts in the case at bar where Gladon, through no fault of his own, was placed onto the train tracks by two assailants.

Crouse v. Wagner

41 Ohio St. (N.S.) 470 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1884

The right 'to contribution as between co-sureties is well established. … Such a stipulation does not enlarge or qualify the liability of the prior surety. He remains bound precisely as he agreed to be in the first instance.

Zumsteg v. American Food Club, Inc.

166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 439 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1957

“The rule is based upon reason and was established for a purpose which has been consistently adhered to from the early English authorities down through the modern American authorities upon the subject. … It has been said many times, but never more clearly or more forcibly than by Hart, J., in Miller v. Fairley, 141 Ohio St., 327 , 48 N.

State ex rel. Klein v. Hillenbrand

101 Ohio St. (N.S.) 370 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1920

Such laws are not to be held unconstitutional unless clearly so, and if they will at all bear a construction which makes them consistent with the constitution, they are to receive that construction, and so to be upheld.” … It deals exclusively with the evidence necessary to establish residence, by providing what the evidence of residence shall be.”

City of Cleveland v. Edwards

109 Ohio St. 598 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1924

Clearly, such waiver is ultra vires and against public policy, and would result not only in blocking the wheels of progress, but in an unequal distribution of the burdens of taxation between those specially favored by such … It is given no authority to say that a given parcel of land shall never be taken as a highway, nor has it authority to agree that some or all lands which would be benefited by the establishment of a highway shall have immunity

State ex rel. Court Index Press, Inc. v. Deters

56 Ohio St. 3d 140 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1990

Relator may do so through an action in mandamus, provided that relator establishes its legal right and respondents’ legal duty. II We next consider whether relator is entitled to the writ. … Therefore, the Court Index qualifies as a newspaper of general circulation under R.C. 7.12, and legal notices may be published in it. 2 The instant case is clearly distinguishable from Record Publishing Co.

Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Case Western Reserve University

76 Ohio St. 3d 168 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1996

For the following reasons, we hold that the trial court’s finding that these accommodations were reasonable is clearly erroneous and an abuse of discretion. … Second, the trial court’s findings that the modifications were reasonable and that Fischer was “otherwise qualified” to participate in CWRU’s medical school program were clearly erroneous and an abuse of discretion because

Kilbreath v. Rudy

16 Ohio St. 2d 70 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1968

We think that the statutes under consideration clearly fall within the definition of remedial. See McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U. S. 220 . … These statutes do not create new wrongs, they merely let local courts reach farther for personal jurisdiction over those who have committed established wrongs.

Sauer v. Crews (Slip Opinion)

140 Ohio St. 3d 314 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 2, 2014

Anything qualifying as “mobile equipment” as defined by the policy is excepted from the definition of “auto.” Crews argues that the trailer qualifies as “mobile equipment” pursuant to Section V(12)(f) of the policy. … The CGL policy issued by Century clearly provides that trailers are excluded from coverage.

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Bogle

115 Ohio St. 3d 455 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 10, 2007

.” {¶ 15} Norfolk urges that these statutes establish procedural rules that do not affect substantive federal rights and that the prima facie filing requirements mirror those established in the federal courts themselves. … immunity, even though denial constituted a final order for actions in federal court under Section 1291, Title 28, U.S.Code and Mitchell v.

Pagano v. Cerri

93 Ohio St. (N.S.) 345 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1916

A treaty duly ratified has no more binding force than an act of congress generally, and as to its subject-matter clearly it cannot overstep the limitations of the federal constitution. … Any other construction would work a departure from the established and well-settled policy of more than a century.

State v. Fork

2024 Ohio 1016 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2024

Muenchenbach and its “use standard” is therefore inapplicable to this case. {¶ 25} In Muenchenbach, we determined whether, for purposes of establishing immunity for public-entity defendants under R.C. 2744.02(B), … Rather, R.C. 4501.01(VV) includes qualifying language that the vehicle must be “principally for the purpose of” one of the activities listed in the statutory division.