Case law

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Trainor

129 Ohio St. 3d 100 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2011

Bar Assn. v. … V(9)(B). We adopt the board’s recommended sanction. {¶ 11} Accordingly, Robert N.

State ex rel. Wilen v. Kent (Slip Opinion)

144 Ohio St. 3d 121 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 17, 2015

Cramer v. Brown, 7 Ohio St.3d 5, 6, 454 N.E.2d 1321 (1983). Applying Cramer, we decline to consider the city’s constitutional challenge at this time. … Frost Brown Todd, L.L.C., Philip K. Hartmann, Eugene L. Hollins, and Yazan S.

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

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

Brown v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Elections, 142 Ohio St.3d 370, 2014-Ohio-4022, 31 N.E.3d 596, ¶ 11. … Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 63, 2006-Ohio-1292, 846 N.E.2d 8, ¶ 23. The writ of mandamus should be denied.

State ex rel. Dennis v. Board of Education of Hillsdale Local School District

28 Ohio St. 3d 263 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1986

In Crawford v. Bd. of Edn. (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 324 , this court had occasion to consider the applicability of R.C. 3319.11 to substitute teacher contracts. … Brown, JJ., concur. Douglas, J., concurs in judgment only. Locher, Holmes and Wright, JJ., dissent.

Grabler Manufacturing Co. v. Kosydar

35 Ohio St. 2d 23 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1973

Brown, J., dissenting. The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals, that the monies paid as “damages” were amounts contracted for within the term of “price,” as defined in R. … I would affirm the board in this regard.

Lancaster Colony Corp. v. Lindley

61 Ohio St. 2d 268 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1980

In Pelton v. … Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed. Decision affirmed. Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.

Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Rosett.

154 Ohio St. 3d 117 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2018

Columbus Bar Assn. v. … In support of this sanction, the board cites three cases in which we have imposed one-year suspensions stayed on similar conditions for comparable misconduct. See Toledo Bar Assn. v.

In re Appeal of Suspension of Huffer from Circleville High School

47 Ohio St. 3d 12 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1989

My usual stance is one supportive of the sound exercise of the board’s administrative authority to operate its school program. In this regard see my most recent comments in dissent in the case of Phillips v. … However, I concur with Justice Brown’s statement in his dissent that the facts here do “not lead me to invoke the spectre of ‘the current drug and alcohol crisis.’ ” I am in agreement with Justice Brown that the school board

In re Simmons

63 Ohio St. 3d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1992

We have reviewed the record in this case and are particularly struck, as the board was, with this applicant’s forthright confession of and testimony about his misconduct. … Brown, JJ., concur in judgment only.

State ex rel. Thompson v. Roadway Express, Inc.

12 Ohio St. 3d 76 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1984

Ramirez, v. Indus. … Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur. C. Brown, J., dissents.

Trumbull County Bar Ass'n v. Landers

61 Ohio St. 3d 88 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1991

We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), and 5-105(B) and (C) as found by the board. We also agree with the penalty and conditions that the board recommended. … Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur. . Letters from respondent and his attorney suggest that respondent has already complied with the condition that he successfully complete a residential alcohol rehabilitation program.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Sullivan

41 Ohio St. 3d 6 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1989

This court agrees with the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6). We also concur with the board’s recommendation. … Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Snider v. Limbach

44 Ohio St. 3d 200 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1989

When no competent and probative evidence is developed before the Board of Tax Appeals to show that the Tax Commissioner’s determination of the value of property is factually incorrect, it is error for the board to reverse … Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Stinson

25 Ohio St. 3d 130 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1986

Based upon review of the evidence presented to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, the court concurs in the findings and recommendations of the board. … Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hock

36 Ohio St. 3d 177 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1988

This court finds that respondent violated the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules and hereby adopts the board’s recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is ordered suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years. … Brown, JJ., concur.

Blue Cross v. Jump

61 Ohio St. 2d 246 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1980

Brown. JJ., dissent. … See Henry's Cafe v. Board of Liquor Control (1959), 170 Ohio St. 233 , 235-236 (interpreting Andrews v. Board of Liquor Control [1955], 164 Ohio St. 275 ).

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowen

38 Ohio St. 3d 323 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1988

However, to adopt the board’s recommended sanction, we *324 would necessarily be required to deviate substantially from the precedent established by this court. … Brown, J.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowersock

44 Ohio St. 3d 170 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1989

Having thoroughly reviewed the instant record, we agree with the board’s finding that respondent committed the misconduct charged in the complaint. We also concur in the board’s recommendation. … Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Cook

89 Ohio St. 3d 80 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 24, 2000

V(5)(A)(4). … Brown, First Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Mary L.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Wolf

110 Ohio St. 3d 411 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 27, 2006

V(5)(A). … Based on the mitigating and aggravating factors determined by the board, we also accept the recommended sanction. {¶ 14} In Disciplinary Counsel v.