Case law

State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Information Network v. Shirey

78 Ohio St. 3d 400 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 14, 1997

If the City had undertaken this task without hiring PDI, the applications would clearly have been subject to the open-record law. … Gannett has established a sufficient public benefit. See Plain Dealer, 75 Ohio St.3d at 36-37 , 661 N.E.2d at 192 , quoting Kenai v.

State v. Simpkins

117 Ohio St. 3d 420 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2008

‘The effect of determining that a judgment is void is well established. … But the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in the sentencing area also “clearly establish that a sentence does not have the qualities of constitutional finality that attend an acquittal.” United States v.

Ohio Power Co. v. Deist

154 Ohio St. 473 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1951

We believe that it can qualify as a “structure” or “appliance” constituting part of an electric plant, provided its necessity is established. … But, while they should be strictly construed, the purpose and intention of the Legislature, when clearly manifested in the statute, should not be defeated by any narrow, strained, forced, or artificial construction of its

Board of Elections v. State Ex Rel. Schneider

128 Ohio St. 273 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 9, 1934

We think the idea of our Constitution is that the people shall choose a man to fit the established term, and not that the legislature shall establish a term to fit the man who has been chosen. … The legislature establishes the office, and the people provide the incumbent.

State ex rel. Taylor v. French

96 Ohio St. (N.S.) 172 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1917

The vice of the act, in the opinion of the court, was that in the election of municipal officers it denied the right of constitutionally qualified electors to vote for the *179 whole number of officers to be chosen. … He says, at page 93: “This article provides two modes of securing the permitted immunity from the operation of the uniform laws which the legislature is required to pass.”

Austin Co. v. Brown

121 Ohio St. 271 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1929

It is claimed, however, that the unnumbered paragraph following paragraph (B) was intended to qualify the language of paragraph (A). … Our attention is called to the language of Section 35, Article II, of the Constitution, which authorized the establishment of a compulsory workmen’s compensation law.

State ex rel. Hover v. Wolven

175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 114 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1963

The nntraversed allegations of relator’s petition and those of the amended answer establish a fact pattern that clearly presents the issues arising in this litigation. … On November 7,1961, Judd was elected to the office of member of the Board of Education of Hamilton County (hereinafter referred to as the county board) and was sworn in and qualified for that office on January 20, 1962.

State ex rel. White v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion)

160 Ohio St. 3d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 14, 2020

She needed a minimum of 50 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. R.C. 3513.05. … White does not allege fraud or corruption, so the question is whether the board abused its discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law.

Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Tracy

74 Ohio St. 3d 654 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1996

The FDA requires that stability testing be done (1) prior to FDA approval in order to develop a protocol for manufacturing the product and to establish future testing procedures, and (2) after the drug is packaged and marketed … (New language emphasized.) {¶ 14} It is axiomatic that exemptions from taxation are not favored by the law and the intention to grant an exception must be clearly expressed. Meridian Technology Leasing Corp. v.

Stark County Milk Producers' Ass'n v. Tabeling

129 Ohio St. 159 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1934

If the facts are in dispute, the question of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of anything is a mixed question of law and fact; but if the facts are clear and undisputed, it is clearly a question of law. Kroll v. … mutual mistake sufficient to justify reformation of an instrument; in engrafting trusts; in establishing an estoppel; in establishing an equitable mortgage out of a deed absolute on its face; in establishing a contract to

State v. Mayl

106 Ohio St. 3d 207 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 21, 2005

To avoid usurping a function that the General Assembly has assigned to the Director of Health, however, we must limit the substantial-compliance standard set forth in Plummer to excusing only errors that are clearly de minimis … It does not set forth the standard by which the test results will be deemed reliable to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) and regulations contained in Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 3701-53 do that.

State v. Williams

55 Ohio St. 2d 82 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1978

It is now well established that under the “plain view” doctrine, police officers may seize evidence,, instrumentalities or fruits of a crime without the necessity of having first obtained a search warrant specifically naming … Hence, in order to qualify under the plain view exception, it must be shown that (1) the initial intrusion which afforded the authorities the plain view was lawful; (2) the discovery of the evidence was inadvertent; and (

State v. Tingler

31 Ohio St. 2d 100 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1972

At the pre-trial hearing, the prosecution established the fact of the confrontation and the absence of counsel, and appellant established that Mrs. … But the Wade-Gilbert rule is qualified by the harmless error rule of Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U. S. 18 .

Vought Industries, Inc. v. Tracy

72 Ohio St. 3d 261 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 24, 1995

R.C. 5733.06 establishes the rate of the tax that is to be 1. … Since the reduction depends on legislative grace, the statute must clearly express the exemption, Cleveland v.

State v. Posey

40 Ohio St. 3d 420 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1988

In Pi Kappa Alpha, “[t]he invitation extended by the fraternity house manager * * * was clearly made for the purpose of exhibiting the fraternity house -with the probable goal of recruiting a potential member.” … By contrast, here, Cook and his informant companion were clearly invited into the club for the purpose of observing and engaging in the club’s activities, including its gambling activities.

Weston v. Weston Paper & Mfg. Co.

74 Ohio St. 3d 377 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1996

Defendants- appellees and cross-appellants are Corporate Finance & Investment Studies (“CFIS”), a firm hired to make annual valuations of Weston Paper stock for purposes of a qualified stock option plan,1 and three of six … R. 23.1. {¶ 6} Civ.R. 23.1 establishes the requirements for maintaining a shareholders’ derivative action.

Dies Electric Co. v. City of Akron

62 Ohio St. 2d 322 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1980

U * * * “The constitution authorizes the city to exercise part of the sovereign power, and in the proper exercise of that part it is immune from general laws.” … Cleveland, supra, at page 344: “[I]t is sufficient to say here that the powers referred to are clearly such as involve the exercise of the functions of government, and they are local in the sense that they relate to the municipal

Fletcher v. University Hospitals

120 Ohio St. 3d 167 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 23, 2008

The affidavit must be from an expert qualified under Evid.R. 601(D) and 702 and must include statements that the affiant (1) “has reviewed all medical records reasonably available,” (2) “is familiar with the applicable standard … As mentioned above, the affidavit of merit that is to accompany the complaint requires several averments that go to the validity of the medical claim. *170 {¶ 10} Clearly, the purpose behind the rule is to deter the filing

Cincinnati Bar Association v. Hoskins

149 Ohio St. 3d 645 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2016

But the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Citizens Disability is not a lawyer-referral service as defined in Gov.Bar R. … The evidence adduced in that case established that Hoskins continued to practice law in several legal matters despite the fact that his license was already under suspension.

Toledo Commercial Co. v. Glen Manufacturing Co.

55 Ohio St. (N.S.) 217 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1896

The general proposition announced in the Mayer case is established law. … The pertinent provision of the federal constitution is that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states” and that instrument gives to congress power