Case law

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Diehl

105 Ohio St. 3d 469 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2005

V(9). {¶ 10} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-104(A), 3-101(B), and 7-101(A)(3) as found by the board. … V(9). If respondent violates the conditions of the stay, the stay shall be lifted, and respondent shall serve the entire two-year suspension. Costs are taxed to respondent. Richard H. Johnson and Ernest F.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Mollica

2025 Ohio 5372 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2025

V(13)(B)(3). … Disciplinary Counsel v. Markijohn, 2003-Ohio-4129, ¶ 8, citing Dayton Bar Assn. v. Kinney, 2000-Ohio-445.

State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Sherman

135 Ohio St. 458 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 31, 1939

Nays: None.’ ” It will be noted that the board of county commissioners did not authorize the board of elections to rent the machines. … Steele v. State, 159 Ala., 9 , 48 So., 673 ; Ducker v. Latonia Deposit Bank, 242 Ky., 374 , 46 S. W. (2d), 493 ; Drovers’ Deposit National Bank v. Tichenor, 156 Wis., 251 , 145 N. W., 777 .

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Banks

94 Ohio St. 3d 428 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 6, 2002

V(5)(A)(4). In re Banks (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1401 , 740 N.E.2d 674 . … The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) referred the matter to board member Jean M. McQuillan for disposition pursuant to Gov.Bar R.

Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Moesle

106 Ohio St. 3d 475 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 2, 2005

in support of the second count as required by Dayton Bar Assn. v. … See Columbus Bar Assn. v.

State ex rel. Hills Communities, Inc. v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections

91 Ohio St. 3d 465 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 23, 2001

HILLS COMMUNITIES, INC., APPELLANT, v. CLERMONT COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Hills Communities, Inc. v. Clermont Cty. … Sinay v.

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. McGrath

94 Ohio St. 3d 149 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 16, 2002

V(11)(B). When relator’s subsequent attempts to contact respondent were fruitless, relator filed a motion for default. … V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an investigation or hearing). The board member recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.

State ex rel. Mill Creek Metro. Park Dist. Bd. of Commrs. v. Tablack

86 Ohio St. 3d 293 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1999

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MILL CREEK METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT, APPELLEE, v. TABLACK, AUDITOR, ET AL.; CITY OF CAMPBELL ET AL., APPELLANTS. [Cite as State ex rel. Mill Creek Metro. Park Dist. … Fattlar v.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Sarver (Slip Opinion)

163 Ohio St. 3d 371 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 2, 2020

The board did, however, attribute aggravating effect to Sarver’s lack of candor and his failure to acknowledge his wrongdoing in this case. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(7). … This court is the ultimate arbiter of attorney discipline, and though we do not need to adopt the board’s sanction recommendations, see Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gilbert

138 Ohio St. 3d 218 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2014

See, e.g., Toledo Bar Assn. v. … Bar Assn. v.

State v. Williams

4 Ohio St. 3d 74 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1983

State v. Beck (1963), 175 Ohio St. 73 [ 23 O.O.2d 377 ], reversed on other grounds (1964), 379 U.S. 89 ; State v. Roe, supra, at page 247; State v. Phillips, supra, at page 298. Accord Roviaro v. United States, supra. … Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur. W. Brown, J., dissents.

Pietro v. Leonetti

30 Ohio St. 2d 178 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 24, 1972

W. 2d 384 ; Kershaw Estate, supra ( 352 Pa. 205 ); Dowler Estate (1951), 368 Pa. 519 , 84 A. 2d 209 ; Underwood v. Ward, supra ( 239 N. C. 513 ); Brown v. Hargraves (1957), 198 Va. 748 , 96 S. E. 2d 788 ; Keil v. … Schneider, Stern and Brown, JJ., concur. O’Neill, C. J., Herbert and Leach, JJ., dissent.

Schade v. Carnegie Body Co.

70 Ohio St. 2d 207 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1982

Youngstown Municipal Railway Co. v. Mikula (1936), 131 Ohio St. 17 ; Centrello v. Basky (1955), 164 Ohio St. 41 . … Brown, Acting C. J., Moyer, Locher, Holmes and Krupansky, JJ., concur. C. Brown, J., dissents. Reilly, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Celebrezze, C. J.

Columbus Bar Association v. Roseman.

156 Ohio St. 3d 485 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 16, 2019

See Frysinger v. … V(13)(B)(1), (4), and (8).

Vick v. Cleveland Memorial Medical Foundation

2 Ohio St. 2d 30 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1965

Goldman v. Friars Club (1952), 158 Ohio St. 185 , 107 N. E. 2d 518 ; Taylor v. Protestant Hospital Assn. (1911), 85 Ohio St. 90 , 96 N. E. 1089 . The fifth paragraph of the syllabus in O’Brien, Treas., v. … (Taylor, Admr., v. The Protestant Hospital Assn., 85 Ohio St. 90 , approved and followed.).”

Kennedy v. Chalfin

38 Ohio St. 2d 85 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1974

BROWN and P. Brown, JJ., concur. The issue of whether the granting of appellant’s motion to vacate the default judgment was a final, and hence appealable, order is not before this court. … See Teaff v. Hewitt (1863), 1 Ohio St. 511 .

Wood County Bar Association v. Driftmyer.

155 Ohio St. 3d 603 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2018

Columbus Bar Assn. v. … Bar Assn. v.

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Kieft

94 Ohio St. 3d 429 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 6, 2002

As the board found, this conduct violates DR 6- *431 101(A)(3) and 9-102(B)(4), and respondent’s failure to cooperate in the investigation of Robinson’s grievance constitutes a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). Paul M. … As the board found, this conduct violates DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2), and respondent’s failure to cooperate in the investigation of Scribbin’s grievance constitutes a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).

Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Sheild

98 Ohio St. 3d 77 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2002

The neuro-oncology tumor board at OSU agreed with Dr. … Am., Inc. v.

Metal Seal & Products, Inc. v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services

30 Ohio St. 3d 106 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 13, 1987

The judgment in this cause, having been certified by the court of appeals in case No. 11-215 as being in conflict with cases from the Fifth, Eighth and Ninth Appellate Districts, is hereby affirmed on authority of Bowman v. … Brown, JJ., concur.