Case law

City of Columbus v. County of Franklin

167 Ohio St. (N.S.) 256 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1958

. * * * and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, that *259 may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the General Assembly.” … Clearly, a city may acquire real estate for off-street parking purposes under the authority of that section, and in such ease it would be controlled by the provision that such real estate shall not be tax exempt.

State v. Diehl

67 Ohio St. 2d 389 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1981

Using another witness, like the reporter, to read McGhee’s grand jury testimony into evidence to prove his inconsistent statements violates the principle of not impeaching one’s own *394 witness, as established in State v … Clearly, appellee had the opportunity to confront McGhee at the trial. The use which defense counsel made of this confrontation is, of course, a matter of trial strategy. United States v.

State v. Roberts

32 Ohio St. 3d 225 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1987

Because I cannot acquiesce in this broad grant of privileges and immunities to criminal defendants which go well beyond the requirements of the Constitution or Miranda v. … Arizona was established to secure this privilege against compulsory or involuntary self-incrimination. Michigan v. Tucker (1974), 417 U.S. 433, 438-439 .

In Re Estate of Binder

137 Ohio St. 26 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1940

The record of the trustee should clearly ear-mark the securities so as to negative any possibility of the charge of self-dealing. … A trustee qualified to act in that capacity is entitled to reasonable compensation for his- services, chargeable to the trust for which he is trustee.

State ex rel. Dann v. Taft

109 Ohio St. 3d 364 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 13, 2006

One has global impact daily; the other clearly does not. Though their roles may be analogous, their duties and responsibilities are far from equal. … Assembly in regard to privileges and immunities. {¶ 110} The majority establishes the gubernatorial privilege as an inherent, constitutional power that is untouchable by the General Assembly.

State v. Spivey

81 Ohio St. 3d 405 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1998

We are convinced that the information received clearly establishes that the reports were admitted into evidence in the penalty phase as part of a cumulative defense exhibit and that they were properly considered by the panel … Spivey, I find that he meets some criteria for a character disorder but does not qualify for a diagnosis in this category.

Anderson v. Jacobs

68 Ohio St. 2d 67 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1981

adjudged the father of the child in question. * * * Further, because of its recognized capacity to definitively exclude a high percentage of falsely accused putative fathers, the availability of scientific blood test evidence clearly … ***Unlike other evidence that may be susceptible to varying interpretation or disparagement, blood test results, if obtained under proper conditions by qualified experts, are difficult to refute.

Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.

36 Ohio St. 3d 100 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1988

By its Constitution of 1851, Ohio has quite clearly adopted the above prohibition against retroactive legislation. … To establish an intentional tort of an employer, proof beyond that required to prove negligence and beyond that to prove recklessness must be established.

Gibney v. Toledo Board of Education

40 Ohio St. 3d 152 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1988

The Felder court also clearly expressed its view as to where civil rights actions should be resolved. … Felder clearly objected to such *157 a practice. Id. at_, 101L. Ed. 2d at 139, 108 S. Ct. at 2308 .

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.

54 Ohio St. 2d 286 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 24, 1978

The majority opinion asserts that “the sole issue for this court to decide on remand is whether, as a matter of Ohio Constitutional law, a television station is immunized' from damages for an alleged infringement of the right … The United States Supreme Court ruling established that, under federal constitutional law, Scripps-Howard is not privileged to film Zacchini’s entire act.

State v. Hale

119 Ohio St. 3d 118 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 15, 2008

This test is a broad one, and the photo clearly satisfies it. … The fact that the judge did ask death-qualifying questions did not create any such obligation.

Justus v. Brown

42 Ohio St. 2d 53 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1975

The record clearly establishes that appellant became eligible under the requirements of paragraph one of R. … C. 3319.11 reads: “Teachers eligible for continuing service status in any school district shall be those teachers qualified as to certification, who within the last five years have taught for at least three years in the district

In re Estate of Roberts

94 Ohio St. 3d 311 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 27, 2002

In contrast, the commissioner argues that the full purchase price of the IRA was attributable to Roberts, leaving nothing to qualify for the exclusion described in R.C. 5731.09(A). … Since the reduction depends on legislative grace, the statute must clearly express the exemption, Cleveland v.

White v. Leimbach

131 Ohio St. 3d 21 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 8, 2011

Here is the law as clearly set forth in Nickell: {¶ 54} “One of our dilemmas in applying [the lack-of-informed-consent] test is the question of how far a doctor must go in establishing whether a potential danger, albeit improbably … “Some” expert testimony is necessary to establish this aspect of materiality because only a physician or other qualified expert is capable of judging what risk exists and the likelihood of occurrence.

Cincinnati Reds, L.L.C. v. Testa (Slip Opinion)

155 Ohio St. 3d 512 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2018

Finally, *516 the Reds' advertising confirmed that patrons were not being charged a separate amount for the items, clearly providing that the promotional items were "free," or a "giveaway." … R.C. 5739.02(C) establishes the sales-tax presumption that "all sales made in this state are subject to the tax until the contrary is established," and R.C. 5741.02(G) carries that presumption over to the use tax.

Newburgh Hts. v. State

168 Ohio St. 3d 513 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 19, 2022

Article IV, Sections 1 and 15 grant the General Assembly the authority to establish statutory courts and to provide for their maintenance. … Assn., 555 U.S. 353, 363, 129 S.Ct. 1093, 172 L.Ed.2d 770 (2009) (the federal Constitution does not create any privileges or immunities enforceable against a state by its political subdivisions); Centerville v.

State ex rel. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co. v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

73 Ohio St. 3d 19 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1995

the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the analogous provisions of Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, and the “open courts” provision of Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution create a qualified … Mandamus is appropriate to compel a trial court to provide a copy of a transcript to which relator is clearly entitled. State ex rel. Howard v.

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

90 Ohio St. 3d 229 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2000

Accordingly, I would hold that the board of elections neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded applicable law in denying relators’ demand to place the referendum issue on the November 7, 2000 election ballot. … I would therefore deny the writ and leave well-established precedent undisturbed. This holding would not jeopardize the right to referendum; it would just require that the right be exercised in proper legal form.

Cummings v. Kent

44 Ohio St. (N.S.) 92 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1886

The liability assumed by the drawing of a bill of exchange is clearly recognized by the law. … It is a firmly settled principle that parol evidence of an oral agreement alleged to have been made at the time of the drawing, making, or indorsing of a bill or note, can not be permitted to vary, qualify, or contradict,

Goshorn v. Purcell

11 Ohio St. (N.S.) 641 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1860

The proviso refers to substantive matters, and contains qualifying expressions. The intention must be manifest; but how manifested, is not expressed. … The rule is clearly established, that a case of doubt will not authorize a court to say that a legislative enactment conflicts-with a provision of the constitution.