Case law

City of Newark v. Lucas

40 Ohio St. 3d 100 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1988

The analyses shall be conducted by qualified individuals holding permits issued by the Director of Health pursuant to R.C. 3701.143.” 4 R.C. 4511.19, as analyzed in Cincinnati v. … Under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2), (3) and (4) and Newark Ordinance 434.01(a) (2), (3) and (4), the results of the chemical test of the bodily substance are clearly an element of the proof of the offense.

Griffith v. Commissioners of Crawford County

20 Ohio St. 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1851

On February 13, 1804, the general assembly enacted a law, “ establishing boards of county commissioners.” Chase’s Stat. 410. … Under peculiar circumstances, they may alter or vacate roads, laid out and established by the direct authority of the state.

City of Toledo v. Cone

41 Ohio St. (N.S.) 149 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1884

Iudeed, in the distribution of the powers of government — as a part of the machinery of the state government — they enjoy, to a certain extent, an immunity from civil action in the performance of their legislative functions … This authority becomes of increased force when it is considered that the cemetery trustees were elected by the qualified electors of Toledo, and were answerable for their official conduct to the city council.

State v. Creech (Slip Opinion)

150 Ohio St. 3d 540 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2016

felonies, and Old Chief clearly meant to admit that his felony did qualify, by stipulating “that the Government has proven one of the essential elements of the offense.” … Likewise, in regard to felony drug offenses that qualify as disabilities under R.C. 2923.13(A), there are a myriad of permutations of drug offenses contained in R.C.

Barnett v. State

104 Ohio St. (N.S.) 298 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1922

“Unless the testimony is competent on the subject of identity it is clearly not competent for any purpose whatever. … to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Stark County Bar Ass'n v. Zimmer

135 Ohio St. 3d 462 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 16, 2013

Zimmer acknowledged receipt of the subpoena, but failed to appear for the deposition. {¶ 12} The board found that the evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Zimmer violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting … Therefore, Zimmer’s contacts with OLAP cannot qualify as a mitigating factor.

State v. Karcher

155 Ohio St. 253 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1951

Ramsayer qualified as a dying declaration. … physician and his patient was, in the instant case, pure hearsay, the accused not being present, there was no express waiver of the privilege by the patient, and consequently the admission of the conversation in evidence was clearly

State ex rel. Miller v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections

2021 Ohio 831 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2021

Id. at ¶ 19. {¶ 11} Similarly, here, the complaint specifies the details of the claim, sets forth admissible facts, and establishes Hartman’s competency to testify to the material facts, as he was present for and … form that follows reads: Statement of Circulator I, _______ [name of circulator of petition], declare under penalty of the election falsification laws of the state of Ohio that I am a qualified

Gholson v. Savin

137 Ohio St. 551 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1941

When long-recognized and well-established principles of law are applied to the facts of the instant case, an affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals is required. … However, if a release given to one contains an express reservation of rights against the others, or an intention to hold them is clearly disclosed, the rule is different. 133 Am. St.

Marfield v. Cincinnati, D. & T. Traction Co.

111 Ohio St. 139 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1924

That constitutional provision, however, as stated by Judge Bradbury, merely declared that this was the policy, but did not declare that there should be no immunity from such liability. … If the Constitution had declared an inhibition against immunity from liability of stockholders, it would be beyond the power of legislatures, courts, corporations, and individuals to disregard it.

Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Spurlock

96 Ohio St. 3d 18 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 19, 2002

The burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court. {¶ 14} “These limitations on the ‘next friend’ doctrine are driven by the recognition … The court found that Leona Weber had not alleged facts that would qualify her as a *21 “next friend” under Section 2242, Title 28, U.S.Code, and that by filing the petition she had engaged in the unauthorized practice of

State ex rel. Flak v. Betras (Slip Opinion)

152 Ohio St. 3d 244 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2017

Sensible Norwood established that an ordinance preventing the enforcement of state law exceeds the legislative authority of a municipality. Id. at ¶ 18. … the rights in this Amendment shall not be deemed a "person" to the extent that such treatment would interfere with the rights enumerated by this Amendment, nor shall it possess any other legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities

State Ex Rel. Singer v. Cartledge

129 Ohio St. 279 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1935

In respect to such municipalities, the legislative powers delegated to councils have not been limited or qualified. … The initiated ordinance of 1926 established a fire department personnel consisting of one chief, four captains and twenty-four firemen.

State ex rel. Morris v. Sullivan

81 Ohio St. (N.S.) 79 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1909

Each commissioner so appointed shall hold his office until his successor is appointed and qualified. … The established canons of construction forbid such interpretation, unless the plain language of the statute imperatively requires it.

State ex rel. Battin v. Bush

40 Ohio St. 3d 236 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1988

The amended version, on the other hand, established a definition of “absence” as “failjure] to perform the duties of his office.” … Although this certificate fully qualified under the former version of the statute, it may not be utilized for purposes of the amended statute.

State v. Smith

17 Ohio St. 3d 98 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 15, 1985

We believe that Smith is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. … Cole (1982), 2 Ohio St. 3d 112 , is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.

State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.

116 Ohio St. 45 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1927

Three members of the court, to-wit, Judges Allen, Jones and Matthias, are of opinion that the act is valid under the general provisions of Section 35, Article II, of the state Constitution, and that the amended act is clearly … "It is established by a series of cases that an ulterior public advantage may justify a comparatively insignificant taking of private property for what, in its immediate purpose, is a private use." Noble State Bank v.

Galt Alloys, Inc. v. KeyBank National Ass'n

85 Ohio St. 3d 353 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1999

The court noted that the defendants clearly had had an opportunity to oppose these motions. … The court acknowledged in its February 12 entry that KeyBank “has fourteen days within which to establish * * * the amount, if any” of its interest. (Emphasis added.)

Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Village of Moreland Hills

107 Ohio St. 3d 339 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 11, 2006

Moreland Hills Planning and Zoning Code *340 1129.02 establishes a two-acre minimum lot size 1 and 1129.03 and 1129.04 of the code establish minimum setbacks and side-yard widths for homes throughout the U1 zoned area. {¶ … “Municipal governing bodies are better qualified, because of their knowledge of the situation, to act upon these matters than are the courts.”

Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections

97 Ohio St. 3d 216 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2002

by law. {¶16} “(3) The candidate’s candidacy or the petition violates the requirements of this chapter, Chapter 3513. of the Revised Code, or any other requirements established by law.” {¶17} R.C. 3501.39(A … That statute provides that these protests must be filed by any qualified elector who is a member of the same political party as the candidate and is eligible to vote at the primary election “not later than four p.m. of the