Case law

State v. Hartman

93 Ohio St. 3d 274 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 3, 2001

He states that he’s a cook at that establishment and on this day he was working from nine to five. … Thus, the evidence in the case clearly established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant intentionally murdered Snipes while kidnapping or attempting to kidnap her. {¶ 185} Mitigation evidence.

State ex rel. Sanduskians for Sandusky v. Sandusky

2022 Ohio 3362 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2022

ANALYSIS {¶ 15} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, relators must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) they have a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondents are under a clear … Thus, the dispositive issue is whether respondents abused their discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law. A. Does R.C. 731.31 Apply to a Petition to Amend the Sandusky Charter?

State ex rel. Haines v. Board of Education

131 Ohio St. (N.S.) 609 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1936

cent, of the resident electors of the territory, but an examination of the foregoing recital of facts shows doubt on the part of both parties to this proceeding whether the petition contains the requisite percentage of qualified … in this court, the relators have clearly established their right to the extraordinary writ of mandamus.

State v. Hill

73 Ohio St. 3d 433 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1995

Also, Hill did not establish that his cocaine addiction qualified as a mental disease or defect under R.C. 2929.04(B)(3). See State v. Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d at 41 , 544 N.E.2d at 919 ; State v. … Nor does the record establish that Hill had court-appointed or any other counsel to represent him as to the March 23 charges.

Edwards Transfer & Storage Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

11 Ohio St. 3d 226 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1984

To accept Edwards’ argument would be to agree that anything that could be packaged large enough, without regard to the item’s individual size or weight, would qualify for heavy haul status. … Finally, the majority’s summary rejection of the precedent established in Stony’s Trucking Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 139 [ 61 O.O.2d 388 ], and reaffirmed in Besl Corp. v. Pub. Util.

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

State v. Townsend (Slip Opinion)

163 Ohio St. 3d 36 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 10, 2020

The Ex Post Facto Clause requires the government to “ ‘abide by the rules of law it establishes to govern the circumstances under which it can deprive a person of his or her liberty or life.’ ” Peugh, 569 U.S. at 544, 133 … Legislative labels do not immunize laws from scrutiny under the Ex Post Facto Clause. Collins v.

Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Services, L.L.C.

125 Ohio St. 3d 280 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2010

This court has invalidated statutes and rules as violative of this aspect of Section 16, Article I in cases involving a “serious infringement of a clearly preexisting right to bring suit.” Fabrey v. … The fact that a clear majority of jurisdictions apply standards the same as or similar to those contained in R.C. 2745.01 and the well-established rationale behind Section 35, Article II, which underlies the statute, establish

In Re Copps Chapel Methodist Episcopal Church

120 Ohio St. 309 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1929

Another case not clearly in point, but which is at *333 least significant, is that of Taylor v. Binford, 37 Ohio St., 262 . … the rule stated in the syllabus, and we are also of the opinion that the cases herein cited clearly establish the contrary.

Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)

144 Ohio St. 3d 324 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 9, 2015

offending passage from the BTA decision: Upon review of appellee’s appraisal evidence, which provides an opinion of value as of tax lien date, was prepared for tax valuation purposes, and attested to by a qualified … Thus, even by its own terms the BOE’s argument does not establish that the tax additur in this case was clearly erroneous.

Cleveland, Terminal & Valley Railroad v. Marsh

63 Ohio St. (N.S.) 236 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1900

When a party offers evidence he must first qualify his witness to speak as to the subject matter. Here the witness failed to show that he was qualified to say whether the man was one of the crew or not. … As the witness had not qualified as to whether the man who came into the station was a trainman or not the evidence as to the conversation was incompetent.

State ex rel. Commt. for the Referendum of Lorain Ordinance No. 77-01 v. Lorain Cty. Bd. 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

State v. Boston

46 Ohio St. 3d 108 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1989

R. 102, must construe the rules so that they follow Ohio’s common law unless the rule clearly indicates that a change is intended. IV Hearsay Rule and Exceptions: Evid. … Asch, including the identification of the perpetrator, meet the criteria that we have established for trustworthiness and, therefore, Dr.

Frederick v. City of Columbus

58 Ohio St. (N.S.) 538 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1898

“When the line is ascertained, it is not difficult to determine the rights of the parties, for the rules of law are clear and explicit which establish the rights, immunities and liabilities of the city when in the exercise … communicating this fact to the members of its fire department; and that the latter were inexperienced in the use of the tower, and that the city was negligent in not having properly instructed them in its management, so clearly

Davis v. Immediate Medical Services, Inc.

80 Ohio St. 3d 10 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1997

Bañas, clearly was prepared and offered to testify as to the reasons for the failure to answer. … Such background testimony was necessary to establish the foundation for his expert opinion on Dr. Guarnieri’s care. Yet Dr.

State v. Thompkins

78 Ohio St. 3d 380 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 14, 1997

Moreover, the General Assembly in that subsection did not qualify the type of “representations” or “actions” that may be considered by the fact finder. … issue which is to be established before them.

Washington Twp. Trustees v. Davis

95 Ohio St. 3d 274 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 15, 2002

Because the General Assembly chose not to define that term with respect to R.C. 519.211, this court has routinely employed a multifactored test to determine whether an entity qualifies as a public utility. … Clearly, the “telecommunications towers” exception in R.C. 519.211(B) recognizes that some public utilities will use telecommunication 4  January

Patten v. Aluminum Castings Co.

105 Ohio St. (N.S.) 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1921

Clearly the sovereign people hereby intended to put human conservation at the very foundation of its governmental policy. … Clearly, ordinary care is more indefinite and more uncertain than the highest practicable care.

Ex parte Bushnell

9 Ohio St. (N.S.) 76 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 15, 1859

, instead of “to establish justice- .... and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” … The act, therefore, establishing *239 the constitution will not he a national, but a federal act.

State ex rel. Jackman v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County

9 Ohio St. 2d 159 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1967

The legislative power will generally be deemed ample to authorize the enactment of a law, unless the legislative discretion has been qualified or restricted by the Constitution in reference to the subject matter in question … Guidelines have already been established. The void that the Court of Appeals postulated does not exist.