Case law

New Energy Co. v. Limbach

32 Ohio St. 3d 206 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1987

Effective January 1, 1985, however, the General Assembly amended R.C. 5735.145, adding subsection (B), which provides: “The qualified fuel otherwise eligible for the qualified fuel credit shall not contain ethanol produced … Louisana (1981), 451 U.S. 725 ; Boston Stock Exchange, supra. 3 Indeed, the law on discriminatory state taxes has been established for at least a century. In Walling v.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Ridenbaugh

122 Ohio St. 3d 583 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 20, 2009

See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f). {¶ 19} As aggravating features, the board found: {¶ 20} “There was clearly a selfish motive behind Respondent’s conduct. … Levine’s testimony also unquestionably established that respondent’s mental disabilities contributed to his ethical breaches.

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. v. Givaudan Flavors Corp.

127 Ohio St. 3d 161 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 28, 2010

Here the communications are clearly privileged from disclosure at the instance of a third person. … case and the information could not be obtained elsewhere”); Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, Section 92, Comment c (“A party who asserts that a lawyer’s assistance was defective may not invoke work-product immunity

State ex rel. McDonald v. Indus. Comm.

172 Ohio St. 3d 618 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 17, 2023

The Tenth District granted a limited writ, directing the commission to vacate its order and issue a new order determining “whether under the particular facts of this case Carpenter has established that she is a member of … Accordingly—as these definitions show—it is very well possible that Carpenter could qualify as a “member of the family of the deceased employee” under R.C. 4123.59(D). {¶ 19} Whether Carpenter actually qualifies as

State v. Fulton

57 Ohio St. 3d 120 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1991

Clearly, there is no provision in R.C. Chapter 2313 that provides for such an exclusion without the individual first requesting the exemption from grand jury service. … Thus, the juror, not the trial court, failed to comply with the venire procedures established by the court.

State Ex Rel. Strain v. Houston

138 Ohio St. 203 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 7, 1941

The crucial and paramount question presented here is whether the city of Cincinnati, having'been granted and having accepted the privileges of charter or home-rule government under the Constitution, has immunity from legislative … Statutes to promote such purposes are upheld, if possible, and it is only when the Legislature clearly transcends its powers that such statutes are stricken down.

State v. Pendergrass (Slip Opinion)

162 Ohio St. 3d 25 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2020

In that sort of case, it will always be equally true for both competing interpretations that the General Assembly could have more clearly stated its aims. 5 … Although R.C. 2907.04(B)(4) establishes that a prior conviction is an element to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the legislature did not require that the conviction be present prior to the commission of the offense that

McGill v. State

34 Ohio St. (N.S.) 228 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1877

, the convention ‘that • borrow'ed it must be presumed to have borrowed *241 its meaning, and designed that it should establish the same rule of legislative action, which, by express definition, it is made to establish in … There is no provision of that act requiring any apportionment to be made among, or selection from, the qualified ■electors of a city or village.

First Discount Corp. v. Hatcher Auto Sales, Inc.

156 Ohio St. (N.S.) 191 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1951

In my opinion, it was not necessary in the instant case for the plaintiff to establish that he was a holder in *195 due course. … Thus, Section 8170, General Code, provides in part: “Every person negotiating an instrument by delivery or by a qualified indorsement warrants: í í ^ w “3. That all prior parties had capacity to contract. “4.

Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. Fonda

138 Ohio St. 3d 399 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 12, 2014

to represent him in a lawsuit, he failed to advise Walton of his intention to withdraw as required by Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d). {¶ 25} Based on the foregoing, we find that there is sufficient evidence to establish that … dependency, a certification of successful completion of an approved treatment program or in the event of mental disability, a sustained period of successful treatment; (iv) A prognosis from a qualified

State ex rel. Black v. E. Cleveland

177 Ohio St. 3d 96 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2024

.3d 383, 385 (1994). {¶ 12} As for the requirement that Black lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, Black is prohibited from commencing judgment- enforcement proceedings because the city is immune … , and that respondents had a clear legal duty to pay relator those amounts). {¶ 13} Therefore, like the relators’ evidence in both Shimola and Hunt, Black’s evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that he is

State v. Richardson (Slip Opinion)

150 Ohio St. 3d 554 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2016

. {¶ 30} Clearly, R.C. 4511.19(A) is intended to prevent impaired individuals from operating motor vehicles on roads and highways for the safety of everyone who uses those roads and highways. … Surely the responding officer was qualified to testify as to what he saw.

Wampler v. Higgins

93 Ohio St. 3d 111 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2001

The “speech” referred to in Vail’s syllabus is not qualified by the status of the defendant who utters it. … described as a “well established genre” of opinionated speech.

Ritchey Produce Co., Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv.

85 Ohio St. 3d 194 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1999

The government clearly has a compelling interest in avoiding racial discrimination. … However, R.C. 122.71(E)(1) clearly does not say that.

State ex rel. Patterson v. Indus. Comm.

77 Ohio St. 3d 201 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1996

R.C. 4127.04 clearly violates appellant’s right to equal protection of the laws. … “Clearly, the workers’ compensation system is designed to aid workers and their dependents and not intended to penalize victims by denying compensation where due.”

Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. v. Case W. Res. Univ.

76 Ohio St. 3d 168 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1996

Second, the trial court’s findings that the modifications were reasonable and that Fischer was “otherwise qualified” to participate in CWRU’s medical school program were clearly erroneous and an abuse of discretion … The majority sets forth some well-established standards of review.

Westfield Insurance v. Galatis

100 Ohio St. 3d 216 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 5, 2003

Alternatively, the court may depart from a rigid application of the doctrine and, in a single pronouncement, right that which is clearly wrong. See State ex rel. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. … Under most circumstances, I would not vote to overrule a precedent established by the majority of this court. The doctrine of stare decisis, as I observed in Gallimore v. Children’s Hosp. Med.

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Wilson

2024 Ohio 182 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 23, 2024

establishing the applicability of the exemption.” … Conclusion {¶ 50} The department has met its burden of production by presenting evidence that clearly establishes the applicability of the security-records exemption 20

In Re Guardianship of Zimmerman

141 Ohio St. 207 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1943

And where two are appointed jointly, either may qualify without the other, and will have full power as guardian if the other does not qualify. … Courts of Appeals as may from time to time be established by law.”

City of Dayton v. Pease

4 Ohio St. (N.S.) 80 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1854

In such cases, the immunity of the state is transferred to its officer or agent, and he only is liable for his own direct misconduct. … To this class most clearly belongs the construction, repair, and maintenance of its streets.