Case law

Fulks v. Wright

72 Ohio St. (N.S.) 547 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1905

It provides : “A township board of education may submit the question of centralization and upon the petition of not less than one-fourth of the qualified electors of such township district, must submit such question to a … contemplated' only the centralization of subdistricts, and the provision that when the schools of a township have been centralized such centralization shall not be discontinued within three years thereafter, would seem to indicate clearly

Curtis v. State

113 Ohio St. 187 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1925

This evidence was not admissible upon the ground that it established previous offenses of a similar character. … Ex-Mayor Curtis was not the defendant in the case, but he was utilized by the defendant as the person who was best qualified to know, and who was charged with the duty of knowing, the actual conditions of enforcement in the

State ex rel. Phillips v. Lorain County Board of Elections

93 Ohio St. 3d 535 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 23, 2001

Phillips asserts that the board abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law, including R.C. 3513.261, in denying his protest and certifying Wearsch’s candidacy. … Based on the foregoing, the board of elections neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded R.C. 3513.261 in denying Phillips’s protest.

Kintz v. Harriger

99 Ohio St. (N.S.) 240 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1919

No general assembly is above the plain, potential provisions of the constitution, and no court, however sacred or powerful, has the right to declare any public policy that clearly contravenes or nullifies the rights declared … Surely as against the public there is no such immunity. Why should there be any immunity as against the private citizen who has been especially wronged, who has been “filched” of his good name ?

State ex rel. Schwaben v. School Emp. Retirement Sys.

76 Ohio St. 3d 280 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1996

. {¶ 10} Appellant’s contentions are clearly contrary to the express terms of R.C. 3309.39(C). … Such a result clearly does not comport with the scheme created by the General Assembly which established a separate and independent agency to oversee and manage the school employees retirement funds under R.C.

State ex rel. Watson v. Hamilton County Board of Elections

88 Ohio St. 3d 239 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 28, 2000

We will set aside the board’s decision to uphold the protest and issue the requested writ of mandamus if Watson establishes that the board’s decision resulted from fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard … They could instead obtain two years of qualifying post-secondary education. R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b).

State v. Golphin

81 Ohio St. 3d 543 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1998

Before such an individual may be tried as an adult in common pleas court, the juvenile court must comply with the provisions of R.C. 2151.26 pursuant to procedures established by Juv.R. 30. … This statute, in effect both at the time of the shooting and at the time of Golphin’s amenability hearing, thus clearly mandated that a juvenile be given a physical examination by a qualified person prior to relinquishment

The State Ex Rel. Flanagan v. Lucas, Sheriff

139 Ohio St. 3d 559 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2014

appeared] on the November 6, 2012 ballot as the only duly qualified candidate.” … Quoting Ethell and Halak , we held that the relator need not establish his claim to the position beyond all doubt. He need only establish that his claim was made with good faith and upon reasonable grounds.

Hoyle v. DTJ Enterprises, Inc.

143 Ohio St. 3d 197 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 12, 2015

Employer Intentional Torts {¶ 7} Because of the immunity conferred by R.C. 4123.74 and Article II, Section 35, Ohio Constitution, for the vast majority of workplace injuries a workers’ compensation claim is an employee’s … But the question whether the pins *201 that might have been used to secure the ladder jacks qualify as equipment safety guards is not before this court.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Engel.

154 Ohio St. 3d 209 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 31, 2018

If any one of the factors is not established, the mental disorder or qualified chemical dependency may not be considered as mitigation. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. … They agreed that Engel had established all the factors recited in Gov.Bar R.

Wellington v. Mahoning County Board of Elections

117 Ohio St. 3d 143 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 14, 2008

Because the board of elections abused its discretion by clearly disregarding R.C. 311.01(B), we grant the writ. {¶ 2} On November 21, 2007, David P. … At the hearing, Aey withdrew his claim that he qualified as a candidate for sheriff based on the postsecondary-education requirement of R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b).

State Ex Rel. Stewart v. Clinton County Bd. of Elections

124 Ohio St. 3d 584 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 24, 2010

To be entitled to the writ, Stewart must establish that (1) respondents are about to exercise quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ will result in injury for … their discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law by denying his protest against Haley’s candidacy.

State ex rel. Democratic Executive Committee v. Brown

39 Ohio St. 2d 157 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1974

Prom the foregoing, it appears that a nominee would be a “competent” member of the board if he is a qualified elector and is legally qualified to hold the position. … The term “qualified electors” was defined in State, ex rel. Nolan, v.

State Ex Rel. Murray v. Scioto County Board of Elections

127 Ohio St. 3d 280 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 2, 2010

“All part-petitions fail to contain a statement by the circulator as required by Sections 143 and 165 of the Charter and R.C. § 3501.38(E) that to the best of the circulator’s knowledge and belief all signers were qualified … Mathematical Error {¶ 54} The board of elections concedes that it abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law by initially denying Murray’s protest concerning part-petition 2.

Rust v. Lucas County Board of Elections

108 Ohio St. 3d 139 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 2, 2005

Mandamus {¶ 7} In order to be entitled to the requested writ of mandamus, Rust must establish a clear legal right to certification of his candidacy on the November 8 election ballot, a corresponding clear legal duty on the … Rust claims that the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded pertinent law by invalidating his part-petitions because the circulator statements specified the number of signatures to be less than the

Kelleys Island Caddy Shack v. Zaino

96 Ohio St. 3d 375 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2002

Lewis (1906), 74 Ohio St. 403, 78 N.E. 523 (“That taxation as the subject of legislation is of a general nature is established by a uniform course of decisions”). … other municipal corporations or townships from qualifying in the future.

Gochneaur v. Kosydar

46 Ohio St. 2d 59 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1976

Appellant’s argument 1 is basically a reiteration of his “position” before the board, that his horses are not subject to the Ohio use tax because (1) they are in the exclusive federal realm of interstate commerce 2 and (2) they qualify … for an “agricultural exemption.” *62 ■This record adequately supports the existence of a “taxable moment” sufficient to remove the cloak of interstate immunity from state taxation.

State v. Jester

32 Ohio St. 3d 147 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1987

The jury at the second trial was informed that Buckner was to be granted immunity from prosecution for his testimony. … If we adopted appellant’s proposition, it would not be possible to death-qualify a jury.

State ex rel. Swanson v. Maier

137 Ohio St. 3d 400 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 6, 2013

We have held that to establish standing, a relator in quo warranto “need not prove his own title beyond all doubt. He need only establish his claim ‘in good faith and upon reasonable grounds.’ ” State ex rel. Hanley v. … Maier was clearly a full-time employee at the Department of Public Safety under that definition. {¶ 34} The second aspect is whether Maier was a peace officer on a full-time basis.

State ex rel. Wolfe v. Delaware County Board of Elections

88 Ohio St. 3d 182 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 18, 2000

Therefore, Wolfe needed three more months of qualifying supervisory experience to satisfy R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(a). … Based on the foregoing, the board neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded R.C. 311.01(B)(9) by granting the protest and invalidating Wolfe’s candidacy for sheriff.