Case 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.

Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc.

78 Ohio St. 3d 134 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1997

This is so because R.C. 4113.52 contains certain civil remedies for qualifying whistleblowers. … As indicated immediately above, the legislative history of R.C. 4113.52 clearly reveals that the General Assembly considered and rejected the notion of providing a wider range of statutory civil remedies for qualifying whistleblowers

State ex rel. Clark v. Industrial Commission

92 Ohio St. 3d 455 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 15, 2001

Thus, this benefit is designed to address a risk that is occupational, i.e., one that is clearly connected to the *459 nature of the work. … We also noted that the immunity provisions of R.C. 4123.74 did not bar the plaintiffs suit because her sexual harassment claims fell outside the purview of the workers’ compensation system.

State v. Kole

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

“Privilege” is defined for the purpose of the Revised Code as “an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or implied grant, arising out of status, position, office, or relationship, or growing out … Id. {¶ 25} Clearly, in light of R.C. 2713.22, the jury instructions were not a proper statement of the law relating to a bail bonding agent entering the home of a third party to recover a fugitive.

Glass v. Dunn

17 Ohio St. (N.S.) 413 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1867

If the law thus established is unjust, the remedy is with-the legislature, and not with the courts. … If this section stood alone, the plaintiffs would clearly be entitled to the relief they seek.

Holeton v. Crouse Cartage Co.

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

to enjoy immunity from suit. … This is a reasonable method of calculation and not clearly unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.

Heckert v. Patrick

15 Ohio St. 3d 402 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1984

With the abrogation of sovereign immunity, a plaintiff suing the government in tort must establish the necessary elements thereof. Strunk v. Dayton Power & Light Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 429 . … The failure of the General Assembly to place this language in R.C. 305.12 clearly indicates its intention not to impose liability on the commissioners in matters unrelated to actual roadway conditions.

Kraus v. City of Cleveland

163 Ohio St. (N.S.) 559 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1955

There are dissenters to many established and proved scientific practices which are accepted today. … Clearly, the addition of fluorides to the water supply does not violate such principles any more than the chlorination of water,' which has been held valid many times. *567 It was said in Dowell v.

State v. Fairbanks

32 Ohio St. 2d 34 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1972

Here, in addition, the police officer making the arrest clearly had probable cause to do so. Y. … This principle was established by this court in the ease of Brown v. Maxwell (1962), 174 Ohio St. 29 .

State v. Snyder

157 Ohio St. (N.S.) 15 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1952

Clearly the judgment in a divorce case does not satisfy that requirement. … The general rule is well established that the introduction of the record of a judgment in a civil action is not admissible in a criminal prosecution to establish the facts essential to a conviction.

State ex rel. Hughes v. Industrial Commission

1 Ohio St. 3d 57 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1982

As the record evidences a notable absence of medical testimony which evaluates both of appellant’s conditions and finds him to be other than permanently and totally disabled, the commission clearly abused its discretion in … Comm. [(1979), 57 Ohio St. 2d 55 ( 11 O.O.3d 216 )], supra, do not require the commission to accept the factual findings stated in’ a properly qualified medical report at face value and unquestioningly adopt them as *60 those

Woolley v. Staley

39 Ohio St. (N.S.) 354 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1883

There is, however,-in the record before us no evidence-which, in view of the admitted facts, tends to establish that-any tax was due from the plaintiff upon the lot in question, or that any was in fact charged to him upon … We find nothing in the oral testimony given ou the trial, 'which tends to qualify or contradict these admitted facts.

Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals (Slip Opinion)

141 Ohio St. 3d 318 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 5, 2014

C.C.O. 343.01(b)(2) sets forth various uses that qualify as retail business for local or neighborhood needs in a Local Retail Business District. … These uses include a variety of retail establishments, eating establishments, service establishments, business offices, automotive services, parking garages, charitable institutions, and signs.

In re Estate of Henne

66 Ohio St. 2d 232 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 27, 1981

The word “suitability” is not defined by statute, and, therefore, its limits are only established by and through case law analysis. … In paragraph two of the syllabus, the court stated: “A person named executor under a will, who qualifies and accepts appointment as such executor, can not maintain an action to contest the will under which he has accepted

City of Cincinnati v. Baskin

112 Ohio St. 3d 279 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 8, 2006

It is R.C. 2923.17(A), not R.C. 2923.11(E), that must qualify as a general law in this case. … And since we have already determined that only R.C. 2923.17(A) must qualify as a general law, we reject appellant’s contention that R.C. 2923.11(E) fails to satisfy the fourth requirement “because this statute merely establishes

Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

95 Ohio St. 3d 416 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2002

A nuisance can be further classified as an absolute nuisance (nuisance per se) or as a qualified nuisance. Taylor v. … A qualified nuisance hinges upon proof of negligence.

State Ex Rel. Cambridge Home Health Care, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

124 Ohio St. 3d 477 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 3, 2010

Schwartz, as a licensed professional clinical counselor, can claim ‘practitioner’ status under the [Health Partnership Program] definition, she clearly is not a physician.” (Emphasis sic.) … The court characterized her statements as “a medical prognosis that a physical therapist was not qualified to render.”

State v. Jenkins

15 Ohio St. 3d 164 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1984

Clearly, any vitality which this argument may have had at the time of Furman v. … We agree that this testimony was clearly irrelevant.

State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Wells

18 Ohio St. 3d 382 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1985

The wording in the cited portion of R.C. 4117.10(A) was designed to free public employees from conflicting laws which may act to interfere with the newly established right to collectively bargain. … Any such information would clearly be outside the scope of R.C. 149.43 and not subject to public disclosure.

State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

2025 Ohio 5552 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 16, 2025

But the evidence in this case establishes that the latent recordings are only “kept” by the public office when accessed and preserved within 18 hours in limited circumstances—for example, when there is a “qualifying event … Therefore, in this case, Clark must establish that the recordings currently exist.