Case law

State ex rel. Phillips v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections

93 Ohio St. 3d 535 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 14, 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. … Phillips cites no applicable authority to the contrary. {¶ 24} Based on the foregoing, the board of elections neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded R.C. 3513.261 in denying Phillips’s protest.

State v. Hawkins

66 Ohio St. 3d 339 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1993

In the case at bar, the evidence was more than sufficient to establish appellant’s identity as the killer. … Again, we find the aggravating circumstances for which appellant was found guilty, R.C. 2929.04(A)(5) and (7), are clearly shown on the record before us.

State Ex Rel. Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin County Board of Elections

133 Ohio St. 3d 153 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 20, 2012

Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130, 2010-Ohio-1374, 926 N.E.2d 617, ¶ 25. {¶ 13} For the remaining requirements, relators claim that the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded R.C. 5705.261 (referendum … Conclusion {¶ 27} Based on the foregoing, the board of elections neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded R.C. 5705.261 and 5705.192 by sustaining Hollins’s protest and removing relators’ levy-decrease

The Chapel v. Testa

129 Ohio St. 3d 21 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 10, 2011

. {¶ 12} It is undisputed that The Chapel qualifies as an “institution” for purposes of R.C. 5709.12(B). … Limbach (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 102, 104, 554 N.E.2d 1310 (in an exemption case “the onus is on the taxpayer to show that the language of the statute ‘clearly express[es] the exemption’ in relation to the facts of the claim

State Ex Rel. Coble v. Lucas County Board of Elections

130 Ohio St. 3d 132 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 9, 2011

Because the prospective candidate has established his entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief, we grant the writ. … Conclusion {¶ 34} Based on the foregoing, Coble has established his entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus.

State v. Green

58 Ohio St. 3d 239 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1991

In the state’s sole proposition of law, it alleges that the act of pointing a cocked, loaded and functional firearm at another coupled with a verbal threat expressed at the same instant, is sufficient evidence to establish … Clearly, under these circumstances a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have concluded that defendant’s actions were strongly corroborative of his intent to cause physical harm to the officers by means of his deadly

Welsh v. Pittsburg, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railroad

10 Ohio St. (N.S.) 65 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1859

These decisions, under that act, seem to establish, in England, *the right of the common carrier, by express contract, to exempt himself from liability for any thing short of actual malfeasance. … This doctrine, when applied to a corporation which can only act through agents and servants, would secure complete immunity for the neglect of every duty.

Yarosh v. Becane

63 Ohio St. 2d 5 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1980

Where no discretion is involved and where tasks are clearly routine, a fiduciary relationship clearly does not exist. … In the case at bar, for example, observation of prisoners, feeding *12 them, and administering medication to them, clearly are non-discretionary tasks which cannot be used to establish a fiduciary relationship.

State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris

156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 333 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1951

The tests shall be made by duly qualified physicians or other qualified persons, not to exceed three, to be selected by the court, and under such restrictions and directions as the court or judge shall deem proper. … The maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, clearly applies.

State v. McKee

91 Ohio St. 3d 292 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 11, 2001

Therefore, the court followed the established common law and held that expert testimony in some form is required. … testimony is first established.

American Chemical Society v. Kinney

69 Ohio St. 2d 167 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1982

Bd. of Tax Appeals, 48 Ohio St. 2d 122 , established a three-pronged test to determine when a taxpayer could be said to come within the purview of R. C. 5709.121. … A review of Section 2 of ACS’s national charter reveals that ACS is clearly a charitable or public institution for R. C. 5709.121 purposes.

State ex rel. Ruehlmann v. Luken

65 Ohio St. 3d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1992

Through enactment of R.C. 3513.301 and 3513.312, the General Assembly has clearly stated when and under what conditions special elections shall be held when vacancies occur before and after the primary. … district boundaries or not later than 4:00 p.m. of April 3, 1992, whichever occurs first.* * * ” The Act establishing Congressional districts, Am.Sub.H.B.

State v. Stojetz

84 Ohio St. 3d 452 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1999

II Proposition of Law No. 1 Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to “life qualify” prospective jurors after they had been death qualified in accordance with State v. … Wright’s statement clearly did not affect the outcome of the trial. The evidence of appellant’s intent to kill was established by overwhelming evidence at trial.

State v. City of Hamilton

47 Ohio St. (N.S.) 52 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1890

On the 4th day of September, 1888, the city, by its council, on the petition of a large number of its inhabitants, duly passed an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified voters the question of issuing the … On the 7th day of May, 1889, trustees of the gas works were appointed by the city council, who duly qualified, organized their board, and proceeded to the erecting of the works in accordance with the decision of the citizens

State Ex Rel. Williams v. Glander

148 Ohio St. 188 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1947

Likewise, the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held that state property, otheiwise immune from federal taxes, loses such immunity when used in a private enterprise. The case of Ohio v. … United States, *219 supra, observed: “In tbe older cases, tbe emphasis was on immunity from taxation. The whole tendency of recent cases reveals a shift in emphasis to that of limitation on immunity. ’ ’ Mr.

Nesmith v. State

101 Ohio St. (N.S.) 158 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1920

In addition, however, legislation of the character in question in this case is clearly within the police power upon the further and higher ground, the regulation of public health. … Obviously, if any witness called by the state to establish any essential elements of a crime charged were exercising any-special zeal or interest in the transaction concerning which he was examined, such fact might be shown

E. Canton Edn. Assn. v. McIntosh

85 Ohio St. 3d 465 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 19, 1999

, prima facie, the elements of the torts upon which he bases his claims; (3) whether the appellants established the elements of common-law immunity defenses warranting entry of summary judgments in their favor; and (4) whether … I further believe that the facts demonstrated by the record before us clearly justify the conclusion that McIntosh should be deemed a public official for purposes of resolving the defamation claims made by him, which clearly

State Ex Rel. Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee v. Brunner

125 Ohio St. 3d 427 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2010

of each group’s list of officers and members to the state central committee, there is no evidence that the state central committee resolved the dispute before March 1, when the secretary of state had a duty to appoint a qualifying … Conclusion {¶ 25} The Stainbrook faction has not established its entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus.

Gallenstein v. Testa

138 Ohio St. 3d 240 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2014

The BTA further determined that the record “clearly establishes appellant resides in the state of Kentucky and therefore, is a nonresident of the state of Ohio.” Id. … However, the BTA determined that Gallenstein did not establish that she was not required to register her boat in Ohio.

Hoffman v. Davidson

31 Ohio St. 3d 60 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1987

Cleveland Public Library (1984), 9 Ohio St. 3d 199, 202 , 9 OBR 511, 514, 459 N.E. 2d 877, 880 , this rule clearly provides that plaintiffs were required to file opposing affidavits or some evidence to place in issue the … Davidson qualified as an expert in podiatric medicine.