Case law

Bevis v. Armco Steel Corp.

156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 295 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1951

1924, reads in part: “For the purpose of providing compensation to *300 workmen and their dependents, for death, injuries or occupational disease, occasioned in the course of such workmen’s employment, laws may be passed establishing … In the instant case, we prefer to apply to the facts the meaning clearly indicated by the words used by the General Assembly when it amended Section 1405-70, General Code, in 1939.

Jennings Buick, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati

56 Ohio St. 2d 459 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1978

Clearly, an eruption of this type of main with its potential to discharge large quantities of water in a very short period of time creates a substantial risk of harm to adjacent property owners. … The standard of liability should be determined upon the basis of the criteria clearly set forth in Interstate Sash & Door, supra; i. e., Is there an absolute or qualified nuisance being perpetrated by the defendant?

Guardian Savings & Trust Co. v. Templar Motors Co.

116 Ohio St. 95 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1927

This latter question has not been seriously urged by counsel representing the mortgage, and Section 5506 clearly establishes the priority of lien, if the franchise tax is a valid claim. … The Court of Appeals was better qualified than this court to determine the questions of fact, and by rule of this court, as well as by statute and long-continued practice, this court does not weigh the evidence.

State ex rel. Regal Ware, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

105 Ohio St. 3d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2004

She argues that while job-search requirements clearly apply to the second — or 100-week — period, they do not apply to the 30 weeks preceding. … Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-25(D) tracks the preliminary aspect of R.C. 4123.57(D) in stating, “To qualify for an award, as described herein, the employee must establish by appropriate evidence that he has discontinued employment

Bier v. City of New Philadelphia

11 Ohio St. 3d 134 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1984

Further proof, however, would be required at trial to establish the standards for protection devices upon public shelters. There would, of course, also have to be proof of a breach of any such duty. … Reasonable minds could clearly differ as to the cause of the accident.

State ex rel. Painter v. Brunner

127 Ohio St. 3d 463 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2010

Motions to intervene as respondents granted — Motion for temporary injunctive relief granted — Alternative writ in mandamus granted, and briefing schedule established — Complaint for writ of prohibition dismissed … the elector was clearly qualified to vote must prevail.

Toledo Cooker Co. v. Sniegowski

105 Ohio St. (N.S.) 161 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 16, 1922

with two decisions and two precedents established in 1914 and 1918 by a unanimous court in each case. … The obvious purpose of the legislature was to supplant the qualified duty of the common law with an absolute duty deemed by it more just.

Holeton v. Crouse Cartage Co.

92 Ohio St. 3d 115 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2001

However, these persons, who are beneficiaries for purposes of a wrongful death action, are not workers’ compensation claimants and do not qualify for workers’ compensation benefits. … immunity from suit.

Dunn v. Board of Tax Appeals

154 Ohio St. 42 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1950

To establish the fact that it is not being so used, the appellant relies upon the record wherein it appears that one reason for leasing the property to the Curtiss-Wright Corporation was that the Secretary of the Navy had … Although a state may tax instrumentalities of the national government if the latter consents thereto, such waiver or consent must be duly authorized and clearly given. Austin v. Aidermen, 74 U. S., 694 , 19 L.

State v. Golphin

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

We are precluded by well-established principles of appellate review from considering these documents in resolving the legal issues before us. See, e.g., State v. … a physical examination by a qualified person prior to relinquishment of juvenile court jurisdiction. {¶ 9} Similarly, Juv.

State ex rel. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Morse

72 Ohio St. 3d 210 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 17, 1995

Underlying claimant’s argument is the belief that once eligibility for compensation has been established, that eligibility is forever immune from further challenge. … Documentary and testimonial evidence established a $150 weekly income for claimant.

Lancaster v. Hamburger

70 Ohio St. (N.S.) 156 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1904

in the foregoing statement of the case, the court gave to the jury a general charge, devoting much time to definitions and details, portions of it suggesting that there must have been some evidence’ whose tendency is not clearly … can have the effect to disturb the rule generally recognized and well established in this state, that it isj immaterial by what motive one is prompted in thej exercise of a clear legal right or the performance of a duty.

State ex rel. Linnabary v. Husted

138 Ohio St. 3d 535 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 3, 2014

There is no evidence of fraud or corruption here, so the dispositive issue is whether Husted abused his discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law by invalidating the petitions circulated by Hatchett for failure to … that Husted’s interpretation of R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) clearly disregards applicable law, we reject the argument related to independent-contractor status.

State v. Kole

92 Ohio St. 3d 303 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 18, 2001

Clearly there is no rationale for failing to cite this statute to the trial and appellate courts. … On its face, the statute could have established a privilege for two of the charges against defendant in this case: burglary and abduction.

City of Toledo v. Levin

117 Ohio St. 3d 373 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 19, 2008

The Tax Commissioner rejected the claim of intergovernmental tax immunity for the new buildings because he determined that splitting the ownership of land and buildings was not legally possible under these circumstances. … The phrase “ensuing tax year” plainly establishes the meaning of “tax year.”

Vought Industries, Inc. v. Tracy

72 Ohio St. 3d 261 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 24, 1995

R.C. 5733.06 establishes the rate of the tax that is to be charged corporations subject to the franchise tax. … Since the reduction depends on legislative grace, the statute must clearly express the exemption, Cleveland v.

State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. City of Cleveland

75 Ohio St. 3d 31 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1996

In addition, even in jurisdictions which have substantially incorporated the “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [exemption]” contained in FOIA or which specify a right to privacy in their state court constitutions … Relator has established a sufficient public benefit, and Cleveland has failed to comply with its records request for reasons that are invalid. Therefore, relator is entitled to attorney fees.

State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Environmental Enterprises, Inc.

53 Ohio St. 3d 147 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1990

Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 279 , 8 O.O. 3d 261, 376 N.E. 2d 578 , and states, without elaboration, that the court below “was clearly within its authority to reverse the trial court” because “this case was tried to the court … Further, they will be all but immune from liability for most criminal or tortious acts. I hope that this is not what the majority intends.

Georgetown v. Brown Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion)

2019 Ohio 3915 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2019

The village asserts that the board abused its discretion and disregarded clearly established law when it validated the 12 signatures. {¶ 19} Specifically, the village contends that printed signatures are automatically … Although the caselaw speaks in terms of establishing whether a signature is genuine, Crowl and Scott explain that the duty of the boards of elections is to establish the authenticity of the elector, not the signature.

State v. Thompson (Slip Opinion)

141 Ohio St. 3d 254 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 29, 2014

During Saraya’s testimony, the trial court clearly stated that Saraya had “been qualified as an expert.” … See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . *299 {¶ 231} Moreover, even if counsel had been deficient in life-qualifying Thompson’s jurors, Thompson cannot establish prejudice.