Case law

Ryder v. Perini

20 Ohio St. 2d 3 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1969

It is petitioner’s position that the parole board had no right to extend his sentence and that it did so by adding his lost time to the normal expiration date of his sentence. … See Section 2967.15, Revised Code; Cox v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St. 2d 111 ; Cline v. Raskins, 175 Ohio St. 480 . *4 The parole board properly extended the time for petitioner’s release. Petitioner remanded to custody.

State ex rel. Martens v. Findlay Mun. Court

2024 Ohio 5667 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 5, 2024

State v. Brown, 38 Ohio St. 344, 346-347 (1882); State ex rel. Gregg v. Tanzey, 49 Ohio St. 656, 662 (1892). … Courts, 34 Ohio St. 431 (1878); State v. Brown, 38 Ohio St. 344 (1882); State ex rel. Meyer v. Henderson, 38 Ohio St. 644 (1883); State ex rel. Trauger v. Nash, 66 Ohio St. 612 (1902); and State ex rel. Newell v.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. LaCour

91 Ohio St. 3d 154 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2001

Respondent answered, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”). … V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).

Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi

79 Ohio St. 3d 392 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1997

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BANCSI. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi, 1997-Ohio-378.] … Cleveland Bar Assn. v.

Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Mishler

116 Ohio St. 3d 1460 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2007

This cause is pending before the court upon the filing of a report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. … V(6), that the board shall certify and transmit hearing exhibits A, B, E, G, H, I, and 44-47 to the Clerk of this court within 20 days of the date of this entry.

State ex rel. Mango v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

169 Ohio St. 3d 32 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 11, 2022

See Black v. … State v.

State Ex Rel. Banning v. Kennedy

137 Ohio St. 586 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1941

the validity of such order or action or the power or authority of the board of trustees with reference thereto. … Glass, v. Chapman, 67 Ohio St., 1 , 65 N.

Cist v. State ex rel. Wilder

21 Ohio St. (N.S.) 339 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1871

Observing this rule, and extending the principle recognized in Canton v. … upon the clerk of the township board in respect to schools under its charge; one of which is to fill vacancies in the board by appointment.

Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Derivan

81 Ohio St. 3d 300 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1998

BUTLER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. DERIVAN. [Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Derivan, 1998-Ohio-542.] … After respondent answered, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) heard the matter and concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct

In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Per Due

98 Ohio St. 3d 1548 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2003

Following a review by a probable cause panel of the Board pursuant to Gov. Jud. R. … Case No. 02-J-06 Respondent distributed literature that contained misleading information concerning Judge Mackey’s actions in the case of State of Ohio v. O’Draye Jones.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Barnett

91 Ohio St. 3d 387 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2001

The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board with one exception. … Bar Assn. v. *389 Filkins (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 1, 3 , 734 N.E.2d 764, 766 , the “relator must prove * * * misconduct by clear and convincing evidence.” See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(J).

Gruen Watch Co. v. Evatt

143 Ohio St. 461 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1944

In the case of Lehman v. Grantham, 78 N. … Aud. of State, v. Holliday, 61 Ohio St., 352 , 56 N. E., 118 , 49 L. R.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraig

84 Ohio St. 3d 1222 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1998

V(10)(F), respondent’s petition for reinstatement was referred to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. … V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication. For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v.

Adams v. Testa (Slip Opinion)

152 Ohio St. 3d 217 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 7, 2017

SLIP OPINION NO. 2017-OHIO-8854 ADAMS ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. TESTA, TAX COMMR., APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Adams v. … APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2015-2244. _________________ DEWINE, J. {¶ 1} This is a companion case to Adams v.

State ex rel. Dillon v. Dayton Press, Inc.

6 Ohio St. 3d 295 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1983

Tyler Co. v. Rebic (1928), 118 Ohio St. 522 ; Kaiser v. Indus. Comm. (1940), 136 Ohio St. 440 [ 17 O.O. 22 ]; Toler v. Copeland Corp. (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 88 . … Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur. Although having been displaced by Ohio Adm.

State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose

170 Ohio St. 3d 374 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 28, 2022

See Bullock v. … See Werme v.

State ex rel. Weinberger v. Miller

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

If authority for that elementary proposition is needed, it may be found in the approved text-books, and in many cases including State v. Hipp, 38 Ohio St., 199 .

State v. Marian

62 Ohio St. 2d 250 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 28, 1980

In State v. St. Christopher (1975), 305 Minn. 226 , 232 N.W. 2d 798 , the Minnesota Supreme Court held that an analogous statute, Minn. St. 609.175(2), prohibits unilateral as well as traditional conspiracies. … Brown, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur. W. Brown and Sweeney, JJ., dissent. Appellant argues that R. C. 2923.01 does not prohibit unilateral conspiracies because such conspiracies are in essence criminal solicitations.

Black v. Hagerty

60 Ohio St. (N.S.) 551 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1899

the state board of equalization. … Poe v. Raine, 47 Ohio St., 447 , and Hagerty et al. v. Huddleson et al. ante. p. 149. Judgment affirmed.

State ex rel. General Accident Group v. Cramer

7 Ohio St. 2d 83 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1966

Appellant insists that by reason of the judgment of this court in Conold v. Stern, 138 Ohio St. 352 , it is on the horns of a dilemma. … J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur. The record does not disclose the basis of appellant’s claim or Lawson’s reaction to the claim.