Case law

Glass Coating Co. v. Clark

118 Ohio St. 10 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1928

In so deciding, the appellate court, overlooked an established rule of procedure heretofore adopted by this court. … In this aspect of the case, both parties clothed the court with the functions of a jury, and a verdict directed by the trial court should not be set aside unless clearly against the weight of the evidence. First Nat.

State ex rel. Weinberger v. Miller

87 Ohio St. (N.S.) 12 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1912

One who rejoices in the performance of every clearly ascertained duty, will often find himself in disagreement with one who regards some duties of that character as unpleasant. … We *71 have seen as results of that judgment, not only the imperative disfranchisement of all constitutionally qualified electors who cannot read, but the most intelligent voters driven to annoying, and sometimes vain, search

In re Cunningham

59 Ohio St. 2d 100 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1979

The mother perceives the two criteria or tests as .separate and distinct, with each to be applied in certain clearly defined circumstances. … Having established that the welfare and “best interests” of the child are the primary considerations in a dis-positional hearing, and that parental unfitness is not a mandatory prerequisite to an award of permanent custody

Campaign to Elect Larry Carver Sheriff v. Campaign to Elect Anthony Stankiewicz Sheriff

101 Ohio St. 3d 256 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2004

Based on this additional evidence, the board approved Stankiewicz as a qualified sheriffs candidate. {¶ 2} On January 13, 2004, Carver submitted a written protest to the board of elections against the candidacy of Stankiewicz … X(l), original *258 actions other than habeas corpus filed in this court “shall proceed under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, unless clearly inapplicable.” See Hughes v.

State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council

75 Ohio St. 3d 381 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1996

We note, additionally, that the discussion of the Home Rule Amendment in our original opinion appears to be contrary to established precedent, and the sole case cited therein appears to be inapposite. State ex rel. … We hold that, in determining the number of valid part-petition signatures necessary to establish a right to the placement of a proposed amendment of a municipal charter before the voters, Sections 5, 8, 9 and 14, Article

Albain v. Flower Hospital

50 Ohio St. 3d 251 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1990

Wagner Provision Co. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 584 , to establish such a relationship.” Id. … First, accreditation by the JCAH [‘Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals’] means the hospital qualifies to participate in the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Tari v. State

117 Ohio St. 481 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1927

It is the right of every State to establish such courts as it sees fit, and .to prescribe their several jurisdictions as to territorial extent, subject-matter, and amount, and the finality and effect of their decisions, provided … it does not encroach upon the proper jurisdiction *488 of the United States, and does not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not deprive any person of his rights without due

Ziegler v. Wendel Poultry Services, Inc.

67 Ohio St. 3d 10 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 26, 1993

However, a collision does not establish a violation of R.C. 4511.21(A) in every case. Id. at 69 , 4 OBR at 158, 446 N.E.2d at 457 ; Blair v. … To hold otherwise would be to permit the plaintiff to obtain a double recovery, something the statute was clearly designed to prevent.

Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Gath

118 Ohio St. 257 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1928

Any person of sufficient intelligence to qualify as a juror at all' should be able to apply such a rule without further instruction. … The burden was therefore upon the claimant to establish that fact.

State ex rel. Roadway Express v. Industrial Commission

82 Ohio St. 3d 510 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1998

“Eaton I"), reconsidered and modified on other grounds (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 106 , 541 *513 N.E.2d 64 , denounced this policy because it paid TTD to claimants whose conditions were no longer temporary and, thus, did not qualify … To establish this affirmative defense and defeat Roadway’s claim for relief, the commission must prove material prejudice — Roadway’s unexplained or unreasonable delay in asserting a right is not enough.

State Ex Rel. Steubenville Ice Co. v. Merrell

127 Ohio St. 453 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1934

The matter clearly resolves itself into a question of constitutional, rather than statutory, interpretation. … The legal rate of interest, as established by the South Carolina statute was applied in this case.

Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission

58 Ohio St. 2d 108 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 9, 1979

As to questions of fact, this court has .repeatedly enunciated the rule that orders of the commission, wall not. be reversed unless they are manifestly aga-inst the weight of the evidence or are so clearly unsupported by … The commission acknowledged that the standard applied in this cause does not establish rigid criteria for the fu- *112 tare.

Somerset Bank v. Edmund

76 Ohio St. (N.S.) 396 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1907

constable, in this state, is, by virtue of his office, a conservator of the peace; and whenever he has knowledge, or specific information, that a felony has been committed at a particular locality within his jurisdiction, it is clearly … And both public policy and sound morals forbid that he should be permitted to demand -or receive for the performance of a purely legal duty any fee or reward other than that established and allowed by law as compensation

State ex rel. WTOL Television, L.L.C. v. Cedar Fair, L.P.

174 Ohio St. 3d 376 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2023

Neither the ordinance nor the agreement creates a department—or any organization at all. {¶ 26} The record does not clearly show how the CPPD was created, but there is no evidence indicating that it was “established … This assertion is unavailing. {¶ 38} A records custodian bears the burden “ ‘to plead and prove facts clearly establishing the applicability of the [exception].’ ” (Brackets sic.)

Bays v. Shenango Co.

53 Ohio St. 3d 132 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1990

Just as clearly, management’s rejection of this offer did not lead to a constructive lockout. The parties could not agree on the terms of a new contract, so the employees exercised their right to strike. … Comp. (1951), 155 Ohio St. 53 , 44 O.O. 75 , 97 N.E. 2d 425 , paragraph one of the syllabus: “The burden of proof is upon the claimant to establish the right to unemployment benefits under the unemployment compensation law

Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc.

78 Ohio St. 3d 134 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1997

This is so because R.C. 4113.52 contains certain civil remedies for qualifying whistleblowers. … civil remedies for qualifying whistleblowers who are discharged or disciplined in violation of the statute.

State v. Thomas (Slip Opinion)

152 Ohio St. 3d 15 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 4, 2017

The alleged error did not affect Thomas's substantial rights {¶ 66} Even assuming arguendo that the knife evidence was obviously irrelevant, to qualify as correctible plain error, the defect "must have affected 'substantial … Indeed, we have continued to apply Long 's clearly-would-have-been-otherwise standard since Rogers was decided. See *835 State v.

State ex rel. Committee for the Referendum v. Lorain County Board of Elections

96 Ohio St. 3d 308 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2002

contained on it, and shall sign a statement made under penalty of election falsification that the circulator witnessed the affixing of every signature, that all signers were to the best of the circulator’s knowledge and belief qualified … Conclusion {¶ 51} Based on the foregoing, the committee failed to establish that the board had either abused its discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law by sustaining Oster’s protest and decertifying the referendum

Knust v. Wilkins

111 Ohio St. 3d 331 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 22, 2006

They established a corporation in 1983 called Precision Packaging & Services, Inc. … A trust *335 can qualify as an ESBT if its only beneficiaries are individuals, estates, or certain organizations listed in the Internal Revenue Code.

State ex rel. Brinda v. Lorain County Board of Elections

115 Ohio St. 3d 299 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2007

Conclusion {¶ 32} Based on the foregoing, Brinda has established her entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus. … This result is “also consistent with our duty to liberally construe words Kmiting the right of a person to hold office in favor of those seeking to hold office so that the public may have the benefit of choice from all qualified