Case law

State ex rel. Zeigler v. Zumbar

129 Ohio St. 3d 240 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2011

It must have been clearly intended that a ‘complaint and hearing’ should be allowed ‘to all officers.’ * * * {¶ 37} “ * * * {¶ 38} “It may be said that this is not a criminal trial. True. … But it is no less a condemnation for a crime, followed by a penalty, the ousting of a man from public office by three men, servants of the people it is true, but hardly qualified to put out of office without a hearing a public

State v. Seiber

56 Ohio St. 3d 4 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1990

Appellant established in mitigation that he had lifelong health, mental and adjustment problems. … Clearly, appellant has not displayed any mitigating character traits in his life.

Tod v. Wick Bros.

36 Ohio St. (N.S.) 370 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1881

This is the extent of the immunity or privilege which the act confers. … consequences resulting from a want of consideration in the note, to show that they purchased the note before due, in the usual course of trade, and for value, upon showing which, the burden shifted to the defendant, to establish

State Ex Rel. Wilms v. Blake

144 Ohio St. 619 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1945

It means “a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against reason and evidence” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary). … “Now the word ‘frame’ without qualifying or limiting modifier would be broad enough to include metal cross pieces under and supporting the floor of this elevator.

Global Knowledge Training, L.L.C. v. Levin

127 Ohio St. 3d 34 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2010

Zaino, 98 Ohio St.3d 292, 2003- Ohio-855, 784 N.E.2d 93, ¶ 10, the tax commissioner’s findings “are presumptively valid, absent a demonstration that those findings are clearly unreasonable or unlawful.” … However, that testimony does not by itself establish whether these languages primarily involve systems software or application software. 3.

State ex rel. Hicks v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections

2025 Ohio 4582 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2025

Bd. of Elections, 2008-Ohio-333, ¶ 40 (“a claim that the board of elections abused its discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law [can]not be based on evidence that was never presented to it”). … Though it is not disputed that Hicks is a qualified elector registered in Clermont County, the parties have not briefed the issue of whether a qualified elector in one county may assert a challenge to a voter’s right to vote

State v. Stowers

81 Ohio St. 3d 260 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1998

Also, Evid.R. 102 provides that the Rules of Evidence “shall be construed to state the principles of the common law of Ohio unless the rule clearly indicates that a change is intended.” 2. In State v. … Until a sufficient database can be established to support so-called child-sexual-abuse indicators, expert testimony concerning standard indicators should be inadmissible.

Gaines v. Village of Wyoming

147 Ohio St. 491 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1947

. * * * “As distinguished from absolute nuisance, a qualified ■nuisance or nuisance dependent upon negligence consists of anything lawfully but so negligently or carelessly done or permitted as to create a potential and unreasonable … However, the court further stated: “Promiscuous shooting in the park by the city’s permittees or invitees was clearly a highly dangerous activity and such a use of the city’s land as would be likely to cause injury to other

Jones v. VIP Development Co.

15 Ohio St. 3d 90 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1984

The fellow-servant immunity conferred by R.C. 4123.741 5 was considered to be controlling. … Common-law damages are clearly unavailable under R.C. 4123.741 for injuries negligently inflicted by a co-employee in the course of employment.

State v. Carmichael

35 Ohio St. 2d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1973

cause to believe that the child committed the act alleged; “(3) After an investigation including a mental and physical examination of such child made by the Ohio Youth Commission, a public or private agency, or a person qualified … Historically, juvenile courts were established for the purpose of removing young people from criminal influence by creating a type of children’s clinic.

In re Complaint of Toliver v. Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc. (Slip Opinion)

145 Ohio St. 3d 346 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 8, 2015

The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the commission’s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence or is clearly unsupported by the record. … Toliver has done little more than register her disagreement with the commission’s orders; that disagreement is insufficient to establish reversible error. III.

Gabbard v. Madison Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (Slip Opinion)

179 N.E.3d 1169 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2021

And R.C. 109.78(C) establishes a peace-officer-private-security fund in the state treasury to be used to administer the training programs that qualify persons for “positions as special police, security guards, or other private … If a person is not seeking to qualify for the positions of special police officer or security guard, he or she can receive only a certificate to qualify for employment in a police capacity.

State ex rel. Tindira v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund

130 Ohio St. 3d 62 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 20, 2011

.” {¶ 8} Myers concluded that Tindira “is totally and permanently disabled from functioning as a police officer or in any other occupation that by reason of experience or training he might be otherwise qualified. … Here, the information about the job duties was provided to the board by Lakewood, and the duties were clearly defined.

Geneva Area Recreational, Educational & Athletic Trust v. Testa (Slip Opinion)

146 Ohio St. 3d 345 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2016

Levin, 127 Ohio St.3d 178, 2010-Ohio-4904, 937 N.E.2d 547, ¶ 16 (“the onus is on the taxpayer to show that the language of the statute ‘clearly express[es] the exemption’ in relation to the facts of the claim” [brackets sic … CONCLUSION {¶ 43} Because Spire has not established that any portion of the subject property qualifies for a charitable-use exemption, we affirm the BTA’s decision.

Jackson v. City of Columbus

117 Ohio St. 3d 328 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 13, 2008

Qualified Privilege and Actual Malice {¶ 15} If a claimant establishes a prima facie case of defamation, a defendant may then invoke a qualified, or conditional, privilege. A & B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. … Conclusion {¶ 39} Based on the foregoing, and construing all evidence and making all inferences in favor of Jackson, I would hold that he cannot clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Rice abused the qualified privilege

Board of Trustees v. Ross County Budget Commission

168 Ohio St. (N.S.) 108 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1958

, Revised Code, provides in part as follows: “The commission may fix the amount of proceeds of classified property taxes, collected within the county, to be distributed to each board of public library trustees which has qualified … It would seem to us, upon the face of things, that the dis *112 trict library itself is in a better position than the board to appraise the need for salary increases, and that it would be clearly unreasonable to grant increases

Myers v. City of Toledo

110 Ohio St. 3d 218 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2006

However, “the immunity that was recognized in the Botsford case has no constitutional sanction. It is amenable to statutory change.” Sibbach v. … Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 clearly allows for a court-ordered medical examination of parties; there is no constitutional, statutory, or common-law right that prevents the order. Schlagenhauf v.

Fisher v. Mayfield

30 Ohio St. 3d 8 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1987

expressed therein, the statute may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or abridged.’ … The General Assembly has the constitutional authority to establish the procedural requirements that must be followed by an employer or an employee when either appeals an order of the Industrial Commission or a regional board

State Ex Rel. Nolan v. Brown

115 Ohio St. 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 18, 1926

The evidence of relator establishes beyond a doubt that it was his desire and intention to get those ballots destroyed that day. … It is clearly manifest by the evidence that if he had not been there and stayed there these ballots would not have been burned at that time.

Breeze, Inc. v. Testa (Slip Opinion)

153 Ohio St. 3d 356 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2017

Instead, the tax commissioner concluded, without explanation, that Breeze had collected “substantial market-rate rent” and so had “clearly” entered the lease with a view to profit. … But what the majority fails to acknowledge is that it is effectively overruling the standard we established in Shoup Mill.