Case law

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.

In Re Estate of Weisenberg

147 Ohio St. 152 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1946

Therefore, the executor has the right to administer it as a part of his decedent’s estate, and such property is immune from seizure and confiscation so long as it is not used in *155 violation of the statute. … The statute clearly proceeds on this theory.

State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner

125 Ohio St. 3d 130 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 31, 2010

Each person who signs a part petition must be a qualified elector as of the date the petition was filed with the Secretary of State’s office.” … Accordingly, the board abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law in failing to certify the validity of the signatures.

Huber v. United Protestant Evangelical German Congregation

16 Ohio St. (N.S.) 371 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1865

The defendant in error is a corporation, and derives all its powers from an act of the general assembly, passed January 3,1843, which provides that it “ shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities granted … The facts alleged in the answer clearly show that the defendant in error was engaged in the very business prohibited by the stat *345 ute; for it had established a savings bank, and was engaged in the business of banking

Ohio Presbyterian Homes v. Kinney

9 Ohio St. 3d 90 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1984

The income over expense ratio of 1.012 clearly demonstrates that the aged paid at least one hundred percent of the total cost of their care. … After an extensive review of the record, we are not convinced that appellant conclusively established that it complied with R.C. 5701.13(B).

A & B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council

73 Ohio St. 3d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1995

The letter was an attempt to establish that Montgomery was a better qualified bidder than Abell. … to investigate, without first establishing the requisite "serious doubt."

State ex rel. Paul Stutler, Inc. v. Yacobucci

169 Ohio St. (N.S.) 20 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1959

It is apparent from the syllabus that the majority of this court is of the opinion that the “consumer,” Stutler, has established its “purpose to use and consume the property purchased directly in the rendition of a public … In this case it is conceded that Stutter itself is not legally qualified to render a public utility service but operates this truck over A. C. E. routes under a lease arrangement with A. C.

State v. American Dynamic Agency, Inc.

70 Ohio St. 2d 41 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 5, 1982

The statute clearly draws no distinctions as to which facts contained in the record are to be treated as conclusive presumptions and which are to be treated as rebuttable. … No fact, contained in the record of the commission’s proceedings, is immune from disputation. R.

State ex rel. Choices for South-Western City Schools v. Anthony

108 Ohio St. 3d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 10, 2005

In fact, the evidence that was submitted by the parties establishes that relators were still circulating part-petitions on August 17, the day before they filed their petition. … As relators conceded, there is no fraud or corruption alleged here, so the question is whether the board of elections and its members abused their discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law.

State v. Williams

43 Ohio St. 2d 88 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1975

McKelvey Co. sought to introduce the “written and signed confessions” of the allegedly defalcating employees after clearly establishing that all the declarants, save one, were unavailable as witnesses. … Consequently the trial judge was excep *94 tionally qualified to pass on the affidavits.

Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Health Center

39 Ohio St. 3d 86 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1988

whether any evaluation of the patient’s suicidal propensities had been made by a qualified psychiatrist. … For example, as with business decisions, the court is not particularly qualified to review commitment decisions involving mental health and dangerousness.

Terry v. Caputo

115 Ohio St. 3d 351 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 3, 2007

The board, asserting immunity, moved for judgment on the pleadings. … following circumstances: {¶ 17} “(A) The witness’ testimony either relates to matters beyond the knowledge or experience possessed by lay persons or dispels a misconception common among lay persons; {¶ 18} “(B) The witness is qualified

In re Estate of Roberts

94 Ohio St. 3d 311 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 27, 2002

The majority’s construction of the statute renders useless these words if “contract or agreement” must be one of the employer-established funds referred to in the statute. {¶ 24} I believe that a qualified rollover … A qualified rollover IRA is established to hold funds from an employer qualified retirement account.

Hurst v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

72 Ohio St. 3d 325 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1995

However, Reynolds and Crawford are clearly distinguishable from Sawicki and from this case. 3  SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 10} In both … The rule originated in English common law and survived the abrogation of sovereign immunity. Id. at 229-230, 525 N.E.2d at 476-477.

Accel, Inc. v. Testa (Slip Opinion)

152 Ohio St. 3d 262 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 6, 2017

Although the “clearly unreasonable and unlawful” standard does imply that the BTA should accord deference to the tax commissioner’s findings of fact, two strands of case law establish that deference is not required. … De novo review is, of course, the opposite of deferential review. {¶ 14} Second, our case law establishes—without any reference to a “clearly unreasonable” standard—that the tax commissioner’s findings are presumed

Joint Hospital Services, Inc. v. Lindley

52 Ohio St. 2d 153 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1977

Exemptions are recognized only upon the showing that that which is claimed to be exempt falls clearly within the express meaning of the statute granting the exemption. … C. 5739.02(B) (12), appellant’s own functions fail the test established therein.

Lehtinen v. Drs. Lehtinen, Mervart & West, Inc.

99 Ohio St. 3d 69 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 4, 2003

individual who is duly licensed, certificated, or otherwise legally authorized to render within this state the same professional service as that for which the association was organized * * * » {¶ 18} While R.C. 1785.07 clearly … The privilege of incorporation was most definitely not created or extended in order that those availing themselves of the benefits could be cloaked with an immunity inimical to legal order and public interest.

State, Ex Rel. v. Bd. of Edn.

131 Ohio St. 609 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1936

cent. of the resident electors of the territory, but an examination of the foregoing recital of facts shows doubt on the part of both parties to this proceeding whether the petition contains the requisite percentage of qualified … in this court, the relators have clearly established their right to the extraordinary writ of mandamus.

State ex rel. Pinzone v. City of Cleveland

34 Ohio St. 2d 26 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1973

Boyd clearly does not support appellants’ position. First, Boyd requires that there be “substantial conformance,” not merely “general conformity” as pressed by appellants. … This second distinction is important, particularly in view of the objective underlying prevailing wage laws, which is to encourage qualified individuals to seek government employment. See Walker v.

Beagle v. Walden

78 Ohio St. 3d 59 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1997

Article I) of the Ohio Constitution. 2  January Term, 1997 {¶ 5} In addressing the petitioner’s arguments, we adhere to two well- established … Accordingly, the Privileges and Immunities Clause is inapplicable to this case.