Case law

American Guaranty Co. v. McNiece

111 Ohio St. 532 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1924

Story v. … The case of State v. Medary, 17 Ohio, 554, in principle is like the case of State ex rel. v. Griffith, supra. One Bates was appointed a member of the board of public works, and as such gave bond.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Celebrezze

2026 Ohio 45 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 13, 2026

However, the board also found a fourth aggravating factor—that Celebrezze acted with a dishonest or selfish motive. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2). … We agree with the board’s recommended sanction.

State ex rel. Ohio National Bank v. Lancione

54 Ohio St. 2d 416 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1978

C. 731.41 is a codification of the “home-rule” provision of the Ohio Constitution (Article XVIII), and has been so recognized by this court in Dillon v. Cleveland (1927), 117 Ohio St. 258 . … Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur. Sections 48 to 51 of the Columbus City Charter provide as follows: “Sec. 48. The Referendum.

Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Watkins Global Network, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)

159 Ohio St. 3d 241 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 23, 2020

In Ohio State Bar Assn. v. … Hosp. v.

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Hill (Slip Opinion)

141 Ohio St. 3d 166 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2014

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. … Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Henley, 95 Ohio St.3d 91, 92, 766 N.E.2d 130 (2002), citing Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Moore, 87 Ohio St.3d 583, 722 N.E.2d 514 (2000); and Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett

124 Ohio St. 3d 314 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 4, 2010

In Disciplinary Counsel v. … Dayton Bar Assn. v.

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harwood

125 Ohio St. 3d 31 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 7, 2010

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harwood, 125 Ohio St.3d 31, 2010-Ohio-1466.] CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. HARWOOD. [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. … Bar Assn. v. Patterson, 124 Ohio St.3d 93, 2009-Ohio-6166, 919 N.E.2d 206; Disciplinary Counsel v. Willard, 123 Ohio St.3d 15, 2009-Ohio-3629, 913 N.E.2d 960; Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v.

State ex rel. Garrison v. Brough

94 Ohio St. 115 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1916

This proposition has been distinctly decided in Reemelin et al. v. Mosby, 47 Ohio St., 570 ; Harding v. Eichinger, 57 Ohio St., 371 , and Holbrook v. Smedley, 79 Ohio St., 391 . In Harding v. … Gongwer, v. Graves, 90 Ohio St., 311 .

State ex rel. Taxpayers League v. Noll

11 Ohio St. 3d 190 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1984

Fostoria, v. … Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Disciplinary Counsel v. McCray

2019 Ohio 4558 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 7, 2019

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. McCray, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-4558.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MCCRAY. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. … V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2).

Disciplinary Counsel v. Redfield

116 Ohio St. 3d 262 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 15, 2007

V(5)(D)(l)(b) or (c) by filing with the board any of the following: a certified copy of a judgment entry reversing the. determination of default as to his child-support obligations, a notice from a court or child-support-enforcement … In Disciplinary Counsel v. Curry, 112 Ohio St.3d 130 , 2006-Ohio-6517 , 858 N.E.2d 392 , and Disciplinary Counsel v.

Smith v. Ray, Supt.

149 Ohio St. 394 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1948

Upon receipt of the plan approved by the state superintendent, the county board gave notice in writing to the various local boards as prescribed by Section 4831-7, General Code. … Speaking on the subject in the case of State v. Tucker, 36 Ore., 291, 301 , 61 P., 894, 897 , 51 L. R.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Lehmkuhl

137 Ohio St. 3d 71 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 16, 2013

Thus, the board unanimously found that Lehmkuhl’s conduct violated only Prof.Cond.R. 3.1 and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). {¶ 11} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. … V(4)(G), the board adopted the parties’ stipulated sanction of a public reprimand. {¶ 14} In Disciplinary Counsel v.

Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Kolodner

103 Ohio St. 3d 504 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 3, 2004

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 111 , 707 N.E.2d 462 ; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cromwell (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 255 , 695 N.E.2d 243 . … Toledo Bar Assn. v.

Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Jackim

121 Ohio St. 3d 33 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 3, 2009

The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. {¶ 3} The parties have not objected to the board’s report. … Co., Inc. v. Morgan, 116 Ohio St.3d 461 , 2008-Ohio-87 , 880 N.E.2d 88 , ¶ 11.

Randolph v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co.

57 Ohio St. 2d 25 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1979

Indemnity Co. v. Jones (1924), 111 Ohio St. 84 . On the other hand, language in an insurance contract is to be understood in its ordinary, usual or popular sense, Bobier v. National Cas. … Burns v. Employers’ Liability Assur. Corp. (1938), 134 Ohio St. 222, 230 .

Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision

96 Ohio St. 3d 170 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 21, 2002

SPECIALTY RESTAURANTS CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. … The Hamilton County Court of Appeals misinterpreted our opinion in Elkem Metals Co., L.P. v. Washington Cty.

Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Cox

83 Ohio St. 3d 218 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1998

V.” This rule does not specify any standards of conduct that are to be observed by lawyers with respect to the public, the legal system, or the legal profession. … The board’s conclusion in count five relying as it does solely upon this rule, count five is dismissed. Likewise, we dismiss the board’s conclusion in count eleven for lack of specificity.

State ex rel. Union County Veterans Service Commission v. Parrott

108 Ohio St. 3d 302 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2006

Duncan v. … Second, the board’s advisory opinion is informal and nonbinding. Gov.Bar R. V(2)(C).

State v. Standard Oil Co.

39 Ohio St. 2d 41 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1974

Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur. It is appropriate to note here that it is the substance of the transaction between Standard Oil and the station operator rather than its form which is significant. … Kitchen, v. Christman (1972), 31 Ohio St. 2d 64, 67 , 285 N. E. 2d 362 .