Case law

Balyint v. Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc.

18 Ohio St. 3d 126 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1985

This is apparent from the opinion in Blankenship, supra, at 612-613 as follows: “* * * Qeneraj Assembly, however, in enacting R.C. 4123.95, established a rule of construction which is clearly of assistance in determining … the scope of employer immunity.

Gerijo, Inc. v. City of Fairfield

70 Ohio St. 3d 223 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1994

The authority vested in municipalities to enact zoning ordinances is clearly defined in this state. … Based upon the foregoing, Gerijo clearly failed to satisfy one of the requisite elements for invalidating Fairfield’s zoning enactment.

State v. Davis

62 Ohio St. 3d 326 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1991

Cooper, during voir dire, conditioned and qualified her remarks when asked if she could follow the law and not place her personal feelings above her duties. … This is clearly a question of discretion on the part of the trial court. No abuse of discretion has been shown.

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.

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.

Ranells v. City of Cleveland

41 Ohio St. 2d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1975

Ohio law is well established that a municipal corporation, while acting in a governmental capacity, is immune from liability for tortious conduct. … The petition herein clearly asserts acts of negligence in the handling of a hazardous gas, with some foreknowledge that serious conse- *5 quenees might ensue.

Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic (Slip Opinion)

2016 Ohio 8000 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 7, 2016

In his response, Chen merely repeated the appellate court’s observation regarding qualified privileges. 2013-Ohio-4931, at ¶ 11. … As it relates to discovery, privilege provides “qualified immunity of an attorney’s work product from discovery or other compelled disclosure.” Id. at 1844.

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.

State Ex Rel. Milburn v. Pethtel

153 Ohio St. 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1950

of the Secretary of State, to serve for the term of four years and until their successors have been appointed and have qualified. … To establish, define, provide, rearrange and combine election precincts. “b. To fix and provide the places for registration, when required, and for holding primaries and elections. “d.

Skelly v. Jefferson Branch of the State Bank

9 Ohio St. (N.S.) 606 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1859

Cas. 616-624, Chelmsford, C. *493 It thus appears that while the rule is now clearly established in England, and it equally prevails in this country, that the principle upon' which it rests, is one of decorum and respect, … The subjects of the grant are not only privileges and immunities, but property, or, which is the same thing, a capacity to acquire and to hold property in perpetuity.

State v. Fork

174 Ohio St. 3d 224 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2024

Criminal law—Definition of “motor vehicle” in R.C. 4501.01(B) is used for penal laws and applies to offense of aggravated vehicular assault under R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a)—R.C. 4501.01(VV)’s qualifying language … 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), a

Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion)

166 Ohio St. 3d 427 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 22, 2021

Moreover, Abdullah had ample time after the complaint was refiled to find a witness who was qualified under the rule. … Clearly absent from this definition is any indication that the abuse-of-discretion standard applies when a court is making a determination of law.

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. {¶ 19} A majority of the BTA apparently … 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

Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products Co.

125 Ohio St. 3d 250 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2010

This court wrote in Johnson: {¶ 110} “Notwithstanding, the General Assembly has enacted R.C. 2745.01, and, again, seeks to cloak employers with immunity. … {¶ 111} Déjá vu. {¶ 112} The court noted in Johnson that although certain aspects of former R.C. 4121.80 were different from the version of R.C. 2745.01 at issue in Johnson , the purposes of both were the same: {¶ 113} “Clearly

Taylor v. Taylor

44 Ohio St. 3d 61 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1989

We hold that R.C. 3113.21 (D)(4) (now renumbered [4][a]) authorizes a domestic relations court to issue a “qualified domestic relations order” (“QDRO”) attaching pension plans qualifying under ERISA. … Appellee’s pension benefits, like all benefits provided under ERISA-governed pension plans, are clearly a “form of income” within the language of this statute.

State ex rel. Ferarra v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion)

166 Ohio St. 3d 64 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2021

Chapter 3501] * * * or any other requirements established by law.” R.C. 3501.39(A). … Ferrara has failed to clearly and convincingly demonstrate any right to relief.

State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. Ohio Ballot Bd.

173 Ohio St. 3d 15 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2023

The ballot language {¶ 5} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus against the ballot board, relators must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the board … it onerously oppressive for citizens to amend the Ohio Constitution through the initiative process, but it would leave unaffected the General Assembly’s ability to propose amendments that serve its interests at elections established

Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc.

85 Ohio St. 3d 298 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1999

The fact patterns in Jones and Van Fossen clearly fall under Section 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution as part of the workers’ compensation trade-off. … The General Assembly’s ability to legislate under the police power “is plenary, except as it may be specifically and clearly limited in the constitution.” Champaign Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v.

State ex rel. Gil-Llamas v. Hardin (Slip Opinion)

164 Ohio St. 3d 364 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 29, 2021

In this case, Civ.R. 12(A)(2)(a) is clearly inapplicable. … The forwarding address does not necessarily mean that Gonzaga was no longer a qualified elector of Columbus at that time, much less that she was no longer a qualified elector during the time that the initiative petition was

State Ex Rel. Levy v. Savord

143 Ohio St. 451 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1944

Relator contends that the Court of Common Pleas can. acquire jurisdiction of a proceeding in disbarment only if and when the preliminary steps prescribed by statute have been taken, and since the allegations of the petition clearly … It is noteworthy that the relator’s petition does not allege that the proceeding was not caused to be instituted by a qualified judge; neither does the petition suggest that relator was not served with a certified copy of