Case law

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.

Martin v. Armstrong

12 Ohio St. (N.S.) 548 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1861

The last two subdivisions indicate very clearly the purpose and scope of the second. The suits to which they refer, are all proceedings in rem. — suits to recover the possession of specific real or personal estate. … suit selects from several concurrent jurisdictions the tribunal which tries it in the first instance, and the other party, certainly, should have the right to have it ultimately heard and determined by a tribunal-better qualified

State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion)

155 Ohio St. 3d 358 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 29, 2018

Even if he sought DNA testing in 1989, he clearly did not do so under R.C. 2953.71 to 2953.81 or under former R.C. 2953.82, because those statutes were not enacted until 2003. Sub.S.B. … He first argues that his failure to meet a statutory exception did not deprive the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction, because trial courts clearly have subject-matter jurisdiction over postconviction petitions.

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.

Post Publishing Co. v. Moloney

50 Ohio St. (N.S.) 71 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1893

The immunity is afforded upon the ground, that it is to the public advantage that there should be no trammel upon the freedom of the conduct of public affairs. … Publications having a qualified privilege are more numerous, and are those where the privilege arises out of the circumstances of the publication.

Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission

117 Ohio St. 3d 289 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 6, 2008

These rules cover everything from the geographic area to be considered for awarding alternative regulation to the requirements an applicant must meet to qualify for alternative regulation. … The commission established the exchange area to judge the overall presence in that area, not a subset of that area.

Cannon Ball Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

113 Ohio St. 565 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1925

There can be nothing shocking about this conclusion, because the same principle was very clearly declared by Mr. Justice Hughes in the Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U. S., 352 , 33 S. Ct., 729 , 57 L. Ed., 1511 , 48 L. R. … Ct., 740 ) of the opinion there is an elaborate discussion of this point, from which we quote: “The grant in the constitution of its own force, that is, without action by Congress, established the essential immunity of interstate

Gano v. State ex rel. Robinson

10 Ohio St. (N.S.) 237 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1859

Alleging that the respondent has been duly elected and qualified as city marshal; and, 3. The third plea substantially combines in -one the allegations of the first and second pleas. … third section of the act of March 17, 1838, “relating to informations in the nature of quo warranto,” etc. (1 Curw. 435), taken in connection with the first section of the amendatory act of March 18, 1839 (1 Curw. 562), clearly

City of Cleveland v. State

138 Ohio St. 3d 232 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 21, 2014

On the other hand, the city argues that the preemption language within R.C. 4921.25 does not qualify as a general law, is outside the recognized regulatory scheme for Ohio for-hire motor carriers established in R.C. … Clearly, by subjecting towing enterprises to the PUCO’s regulations, the General Assembly has made R.C. 4921.25 a part of statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment.

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

Union Savings Ass'n v. Home Owners Aid, Inc.

23 Ohio St. 2d 60 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1970

Many other statutes, however, clearly reveal that the General Assembly did not intend a corporation to have all the attributes and powers of a natural person. … Litigation must be projected through the courts according to established practice by lawyers who are of high character, skilled in the profession, dedicated to the interest of their clients, and in the spirit of public service

State ex rel. West v. LaRose (Slip Opinion)

161 Ohio St. 3d 192 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2020

The secretary of state therefore did not abuse his discretion or clearly disregard applicable law in rejecting it. I. … Chapter 3513 “or any other requirements established by law.” R.C. 3501.39(A)(4). III.

State ex rel. Cordray v. Midway Motor Sales, Inc.

122 Ohio St. 3d 234 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 10, 2009

Liability can be imposed only if it is established that the defendant knowingly violated the statute. … There is no temporal requirement for a transferor to qualify for the previous-owner exception. Such a requirement plainly does not exist in the statute.

Smith v. Parsons

1 Ohio 236 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1823

By a power derived from the people, Congress may establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States. … The states, by a power also derived from the people, may pass bankrupt laws (qualified as above), operating within their respective territories.

Morris v. Savoy

61 Ohio St. 3d 684 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1991

Clearly the majority errs in applying this standard of review. … Section 2, Article I of the Ohio Constitution prohibits such special treatment and such grants of immunity.

State v. Williams

74 Ohio St. 3d 569 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1996

Thus, the defense must, but did not, establish that “the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise” if the asserted error had not occurred. State v. … To prove plain error, the defense must establish that, but for the asserted deficiency, “the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v.

In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Carr

74 Ohio Misc. 2d 81 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1995

The evidence, also, clearly and convincingly established that the statement was not accurate. … On cross-examination it was established clearly that such a misstatement could have been avoided by a search of the records themselves or by simply asking complainant about that fact, neither of which respondent did.

Rio Indal, Inc. v. Lindley

62 Ohio St. 2d 283 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1980

Appellant contends that the burden is upon the taxpayer to prove entitlement to a deduction; that the taxpayer in this instance must establish that its commissions were derived from sources outside the United States; and … Depending upon the nature of the income, its source will differ, with the location of the source determinative of whether a taxpayer qualifies for the deduction.

State ex rel. McGraw v. Gorman

17 Ohio St. 3d 147 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 29, 1985

to section 1901.17 of the Revised Code” (which section limits municipal court jurisdiction to cases involving $10,000 or less), and ignored other Revised Code sections and the policy the legislature had in mind when it established … “The court must look to the statute itself to determine legislative intent, and if such intent is clearly expressed therein, the statute may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or abridged; significance

State v. Heins

72 Ohio St. 3d 504 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1995

An airplane, appellants argue, does' not qualify as a motor vehicle under the rule. Therefore, Watkins was incompetent to testify in this case. … R.C. 4561.01 provides: “As used in sections 4561.01 to 4561.16, inclusive, of the Revised Code, “(A) ‘Aviation’ means transportation by aircraft; operation of aircraft; the establishment, operation, maintenance, repair, and