Case law

Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. King

106 Ohio St. 3d 102 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 17, 2005

Count V {¶ 8} As to Count V, the panel and board found that respondent had failed to cooperate in relator’s investigation of Count IV, a violation of Gov.Bar R. … V(4)(G) and VI(1)(D), as found by the board. Moreover, because we ordinarily impose an indefinite suspension for neglect and the failure to cooperate, Disciplinary Counsel v.

Shelby Mutual Insurance v. Smith

45 Ohio St. 2d 66 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1976

Co. v. Sterner (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 113 , 308 N. E. 2d 460 ; Bartlett v. Nationwide Mutl. Ins. Co. (1973), 33 Ohio St. 2d 50 , 294 N. E. 2d 665 ; and Abate v. Pioneer Mutual Cas. … Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

State ex rel. Vickers v. Summit Cty. Council

97 Ohio St. 3d 204 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 21, 2002

VICKERS ET AL. v. SUMMIT COUNTY COUNCIL ET AL. [Cite as State ex rel. Vickers v. Summit Cty. Council, 2002-Ohio-5583.] … Stutzman v. Madison Cty.

Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc. v. Porterfield

16 Ohio St. 2d 158 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1968

Our review is limited to the determination whether the *161 decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable or unlawful. Midwest Haulers, Inc., v. Glander, 150 Ohio St. 402 ; Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. … In reaching its decision in the instant case the Board of Tax Appeals relied upon its former determination in Miller Brewing Co. v. Schneider, Board of Tax Appeals No. 52020, 3 Ohio Tax Cases, par. 200-521.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Runyan

108 Ohio St. 3d 43 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2006

The board found no aggravating factors. {¶ 19} The board recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct based on Ohio State Bar Assn. v. … The board also cited Disciplinary Counsel v.

Toledo Bar Assn. v. Cook

97 Ohio St. 3d 225 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 6, 2002

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. COOK. [Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Cook, 2002-Ohio-5787.] … Bar Assn. v. Theofilos (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 43, 521 N.E.2d 797; Disciplinary Counsel v. Slavens (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 162, 586 N.E.2d 92; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.

Drake v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.

15 Ohio St. 3d 346 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1984

As we stated in O’Brien v. Angley (1980), 63 Ohio St. 2d 159, 164-165 [ 17 O.O.3d 98 ], quoting from Hallworth v. … Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur. W. Brown and Holmes, JJ., concur in judgment. Appellant does not challenge the trial court’s ruling in this regard.

Wells v. Chrysler Corp.

15 Ohio St. 3d 21 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1984

Today, however, in Mullins v. Whiteway Mfg. … Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur. In support of its argument, appellee cites the case of Starr v. Young (1961), 172 Ohio St. 317 [ 16 O.O.2d 105 ].

York v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

64 Ohio St. 2d 199 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1980

Abate v. Pioneer Mutual Cas. Co. (1970), 22 Ohio St. 2d 161, 165 , 258 N. E. 2d 429 ; Curran v. State Automobile Mutl. Ins. Co. (1971), 25 Ohio St. 2d 33 , 266 N. E. 2d 566 ; see, also, Note 1, 20 Cleve. L. … Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes and Dowd, JJ., concur.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Sarver

150 Ohio St. 3d 1439 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 22, 2017

V(16), in which the board accepted the agreement entered into by relator, disciplinary counsel, and respondent, Jason Allan Sarver. … V(17)(D), this cause is remanded to the Board of Professional Conduct for further proceedings, including consideration of a more severe sanction.

Perk v. City of Euclid

17 Ohio St. 2d 4 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1969

Hostetter, v. Runt, 132 Ohio St. 568 . … Crotty, v. Zangerle, 133 Ohio St. 532 , and Commissioners v. Rosche Bros., 50 Ohio St. 103 .

Disciplinary Counsel v. Taylor

2025 Ohio 4804 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 23, 2025

V(13)(B)(5). {¶ 12} As for mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found that Taylor had no prior discipline. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1). … In support of that sanction, the board considered several cases involving attorneys who threatened to harm themselves or others, including Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoover, 2022-Ohio- 769; Disciplinary Counsel v.

State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose

2022 Ohio 3295 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 20, 2022

MARAS v. LAROSE, SECY. OF STATE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Maras v. … West v.

Cincinnati Bar Association v. Ball

146 Ohio St. 3d 382 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 3, 2016

See Disciplinary Counsel v. … Bar Assn. v. Zimmer, 135 Ohio St.3d 462, 2013-Ohio-1962, 989 N.E.2d 51; and Columbus Bar Assn. v.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter

106 Ohio St. 3d 418 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 26, 2005

Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 , 2002-Ohio-4743 , 775 N.E.2d 818 , ¶ 16; Disciplinary Counsel v. … She relies on Dayton Bar Assn. v.

State Ex Rel. Christman v. Skinner

127 Ohio St. 55 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1933

Under Section 12283, General Code, mandamus is a writ issued in the name of the state to an inferior *57 tribunal, a corporation, board or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a

Disciplinary Counsel v. Frazier

110 Ohio St. 3d 288 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2006

V(8)(E). … Accord Disciplinary Counsel v.

Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt

135 Ohio St. 3d 386 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2013

Dayton Bar Assn. v. … Bar Assn. v.

Kenney v. Evatt

144 Ohio St. 369 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1945

The transcript of the record of the proceedings of the Board of Tax Appeals does not show that a notice of appeal was filed with that board as required by that section. *371 The giving of notice of appeal to the Tax Commissioner … See Johnson v. Sweeney, Secy. of State, 140 Ohio St., 279 , 43 N. E. (2d), 239. The motion is sustained and the cause is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Weygandt, C.

Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Willette

117 Ohio St. 3d 433 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2008

See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Statzer, 101 Ohio St.3d 14 , 2003-Ohio-6649 , 800 N.E.2d 1117, ¶ 8 . … . {¶ 41} The board found that respondent’s overall misconduct was more egregious than the misconduct of the attorney in Disciplinary Counsel v. Wheatley, 107 Ohio St.3d 224 , 2005-Ohio-6266 , 837 N.E.2d 1188 .