Case law

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown

87 Ohio St. 3d 316 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1999

Bar Assn. v. Clower (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 151 , 702 N.E.2d 412 . … Bar Assn. v. Whitaker [1986], 26 Ohio St.3d 1 , 26 OBR 1, 496 N.E.2d 891 ); and remorse (Bar Assn. of Greater Cleveland v. Sanders, supra).

State ex rel. Rogers v. Brown

80 Ohio St. 3d 408 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1997

Litty v. Leskovyansky (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 97, 98 , 671 N.E.2d 236 , 238. Appeal is immaterial where the court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to act. State ex rel. Willacy v. … Fogle v.

State ex rel. Brown v. Lemmerman

124 Ohio St. 3d 296 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 26, 2010

Brown v. Lemmerman, 124 Ohio St.3d 296, 2010-Ohio-137.] THE STATE EX REL. BROWN v. LEMMERMAN, SUPT. [Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. … Glasgow v.

State ex rel. Matz v. Brown

37 Ohio St. 3d 279 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1988

In Nixon v. … Brown, JJ., concur. Douglas, J., concurs in judgment only.

Board of Education v. State Board of Education

174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 321 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1963

Hopple v. Trustees of Brown Township

13 Ohio St. 311 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1862

The proceeding by mandamus is authorized to compel any inferior tribunal, corporation or board, to perform an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from the ofiioe, trust or station, unless such duty depends … Savage and Barrington v. Walshe and Eman uel, 26 Ala. 619 .

State ex rel. Clark v. Brown

1 Ohio St. 2d 121 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1965

King, v. Emmons et al., Civil Service Comm., 128 Ohio St. 216 , 190 N. E. 468 ; and Harmon v. State, 66 Ohio St. 249 , 64 N. E. 117 , 58 L. R. A. 618. In the case of City of Miami v. State, ex rel. … J., Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and Brown, JJ., concur.

State ex rel. McCrehen v. Brown

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 863 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1923

The latter has neither expressed nor implied the power to'miake any determination relative to such petition until after the parts thereof have been transmitted to the boards of Deputy State Supervisors of Election of the

State ex rel. T.B. v. Brown

2025 Ohio 4484 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 1, 2025

T.B. v. Brown, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4484.] … ET AL. v. BROWN, JUDGE, ET AL. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. T.B. v.

Rawson v. Brown

104 Ohio St. (N.S.) 548 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1922

Brown, No. 17206, this day decided, but the interests of the parties in the real estate are slightly different than in that case. … It presents the same legal questions as were presented in the case of Rawson v.

Brown v. Maxwell

174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 29 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1962

People v. Hood, 140 Cal. App. (2d), 585; People v. Fort, 14 Ill. (2d), 491; People v. Matthews, 359 Ill., 171 ; and People v. Crenshaw, 15 Ill. (2d), 458. … In re Poage, 87 Ohio St., 72 ; Rodriguez v. Sacks, Warden, 173 Ohio St., 456 ; and Spence v. Sacks, Warden, supra.

Brown v. State Ex Rel. Merland

120 Ohio St. 297 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1929

Section 14998 provides for the qualifications of members of the board of trustees. … E., 511, relating to construction of highway bridges; Gaylord v. Hubbard, Treas., 56 Ohio St., 25 , 46 N. E., 66 , relating to boards of equalization; Commissioners of Hamilton County v.

McMonigal v. Brown

45 Ohio St. (N.S.) 499 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1888

Amoskeag Bank v. Moore, 37 N. H. 539; Ridgway v. Day, 13 Penn. St. 208. … Bassenhorst v. Wilby, 45 Ohio St. 333; Sanborn v. Southard, 25 Maine, 409; Tyler v. Young, 30 Penn. St. 143; Beebe v. Brooks, 12 *504 Cal. 308 .

State ex rel. Chevalier v. Brown

17 Ohio St. 3d 61 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1985

In that case the relator had relied on the statements of a board of elections clerk that relator’s nominating petitions appeared in good order, when, in fact, they were not. Similarly, in State, ex rel. Jedlicka, v. … Brown and Douglas, JJ., concur. Wright, J., not participating.

Davis v. Brown

27 Ohio St. (N.S.) 326 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1875

In Hollingsworth v. … In Alfele v.

Brown v. Ginn

66 Ohio St. (N.S.) 316 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 13, 1902

That paper contemplates, nay, it provides for, the prosecution for collection of the several claims against Brown. It purports to sell and assign the claims to Ginn. … See Stewart v. Welch, 41 Ohio St., 483 ; Pennsylvania Co. v. Lom bardo, 49 Ohio St., 1 , 5; Reece v. Kyle, 49 Ohio St., 475 ; Railway Co. v. Volkert, 58 Ohio St., 362 .

Brown v. State

18 Ohio St. (N.S.) 497 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1869

Brown’s use, it will not be denied that Brown participated in the act. … In so holding, we are only following the decisions of this court in the cases of Nolan v. The State, 19 Ohio, 131, and Allen v. The State, 10 Ohio St. 287 .

Gould v. Brown

6 Ohio St. (N.S.) 538 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1856

plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, on an article of agreement, which, so far as it is necessary to state it in order to an understanding of the case before us, is as follows: “ This contract between Libbeas Brown … And among these rules none seems to be better established than the following laid down by Sergeant W illiams, in his note to Pordage v. Cole, 1 Wms.

Board of Education v. Montgomery County Board of Revision

95 Ohio St. 3d 462 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2002

.” {¶ 3} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals in case No. 2001-0948 is reversed on the authority of R.C. 5715.19(A)(2). {¶ 4} The judgment of this court in case No. 2001-0949 is limited to addressing appellant’s Proposition … of Law No. 2, which states: {¶ 5} “A landlord and a tenant cannot file separate complaints against same property during the same interim period under R.C. 5715.19(A)(2).” {¶ 6} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals in

Bashore v. Brown

108 Ohio St. (N.S.) 18 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 22, 1923

In San Joaquin, etc., Irrigation Co. v. … See, also, Kenney v. Consumers’ Gas Co., 142 Mass., 417 , 8 N. E., 138 .