Case law

State v. Biros

78 Ohio St. 3d 426 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 14, 1997

Clearly, appellant was not in custody at the time he admitted his involvement in Tami’s death. … The R.C. 2929.04(B)(3) mitigating factor was not established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Thompson v. Industrial Commission

1 Ohio St. 3d 244 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1982

In Eshelby , however, this court qualified the aforestated rule by stating at page 74, “that in the absence of a statute or stipulation to the contrary the increment follows the principal.” … In the case at bar we are clearly confronted with “a statute * * * to the contrary” insofar as R.C. 4123.411 *250 authorizes the severance of interest from SIF principal.

State v. Beasley

153 Ohio St. 3d 497 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 16, 2018

But Wickerham's testimony merely established the chain of custody. … Statements that Established Law Enforcement's Investigatory Steps {¶ 172} Beasley also cites testimony from a number of law-enforcement officials, but their statements do not qualify as hearsay either.

State ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. LaRose (Slip Opinion)

165 Ohio St. 3d 185 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2021

This likely led to the disenfranchisement of legally qualified voters in Summit County. … Not only is this clearly unacceptable but obviously exposes the Board to the risk of litigation. {¶ 48} Under Ohio law, a person who is convicted of a felony “is incompetent to be an elector.”

State v. Keith

79 Ohio St. 3d 514 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1997

In that case, as the Supreme Court held, voir dire showed that the prospective juror was “‘clearly qualified to be seated as a juror under the Adams and [Wainwright v.] … In contrast, in the case at bar, both the trial court and counsel agreed that the prospective jurors were not qualified to sit on the panel before that was clearly established by voir dire.

Cox v. Ohio Department of Transportation

67 Ohio St. 2d 501 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1981

We reject this interpretation of the effect of the 180-day *505 filing deadline established in former R. C. 2743.16. R. … Even if Cox had so held, such a holding would have been clearly erroneous as plainly contrary to the legislative intention expressed in Am. Sub. H. B. No. 149.

State v. Davis

116 Ohio St. 3d 404 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 3, 2008

“Clearly, a juror who is incapable of signing a death verdict demonstrates substantial impairment in his ability to fulfill his duties.” State v. … In proposition of law VI, Davis argues that Elliget improperly testified before the scientific reliability of his expert testimony was established, that Elliget was neither qualified nor tendered as an expert witness, and

State ex rel. Simonetti v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion)

2017 Ohio 8115 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2017

Because Simonetti qualified his affidavit in this way, he did not comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02(B)(2). 5  SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 13} … Because of the proximity of the November 7 general election, Simonetti has established that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Greene v. Montgomery Cty.

Freedom Road Foundation v. Ohio Department of Liquor Control

80 Ohio St. 3d 202 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1997

Thus, were Freedom Road not able to invoke the charitable organization exemption provided by R.C. 2915.02(D), its scheme of chance would clearly be illegal. … directing their activities would itself be “conducting” the tip ticket scheme, and the scheme of chance would not be solely “conducted by a charitable organization” as required by R.C. 2915.02(D)(1), nor would the permit holder qualify

Tax Commission v. Oswald

109 Ohio St. 36 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1923

“This is clearly the intention of the testator, when effect is given to the whole will, and the intention should always govern. … It is well established in this state that the law favors the vesting of estates. Linton v. Laycock, 33 Ohio St., 128 .

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hartke

132 Ohio St. 3d 116 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2012

. {¶ 3} The evidence from the parties’ stipulations establishes that in 2009, Jacqueline Usher retained Hartke to represent her in her divorce. By October 2009, Usher owed Hartke over $5,000 in legal fees. … However, the attorney in Miller clearly admitted the wrongful nature of his conduct, calling it “ ‘absolutely sickening,’ an ‘abomination,’ and ‘reprehensible.’ ” Id. at ¶ 12.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Levin

117 Ohio St. 3d 46 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2008

The goal was to establish a price that would both yield an appropriate profit margin and be a competitive market price. … If the owner is billed, the owner is clearly the consumer of the parts and services. Under Gen.

State v. Mapp

170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 427 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1960

Had I been a member of this court at that time 1 would have joined in the judgment as all the members of the court then did because the evidence there clearly established that the defendant was operating a bomb manufacturing … been found printing presses with evidence of their criminal use or a sufficient volume of books *438 to indicate the purpose of distribution, commercial or otherwise, we might well hold that the privacy and constitutional immunity

State ex rel. Moscow v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections

169 Ohio St. 3d 161 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 8, 2022

The majority opinion in Pringle did not discuss the impact, if any, of R.C. 703.20(A)(1)’s qualifying phrase “as provided in division (B)(1) of this section.” 3 … Instead, the protesters contend that the board clearly failed to follow the applicable legal provisions in placing the petition on the November ballot. {¶ 15} That the first and third elements of the prohibition analysis

Groveport Madison Local Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision

137 Ohio St. 3d 266 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 24, 2013

Bank, the record contains evidence that the trust qualified as an entity entitled to file a valuation complaint pursuant to R.C. 5715.19(A). … Public Storage has not expressly argued that the trust’s interest in the partnership establishes its standing, instead relying on that interest to establish that the trust was affected by the valuation of the subject property

Kuehnl v. Industrial Commission

136 Ohio St. 313 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1940

This was the specific question before the court and clearly it did not extend the doctrine there announced to the case of a shareholder of a corporation. … For instance, one who is an executive and is also a salesman for his corporation cannot establish a claim for an injury while acting as such salesman (Kutil v. Floyd Valley Mfg. Co., 205 Iowa, 967 , 218 N.

State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose

2022 Ohio 3295 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 20, 2022

. {¶ 7} To qualify for the ballot, Maras needed to submit at least 5,000 valid petition signatures. See R.C. 3513.257(A). … Clearly then, “[a] jurat is not the same as an acknowledgment.” 1A Corpus Juris Secundum, Acknowledgments, Section 1 (2022). The key difference is that an acknowledgment is not made under oath.

Timken Co. v. Kosydar

52 Ohio St. 2d 131 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1977

It has long been established, in cases dealing with R. … may not he restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged, or abridged * * The intent of the General Assembly in R.

State ex rel. Liposchak v. Indus. Comm.

90 Ohio St. 3d 276 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 14, 2000

When the answer is “yes,” the claimant has cleared the first hurdle, and then may attempt to establish his or her extent of disability. … “The administrator may take into consideration any circumstances which, at the time of the death of the decedent, clearly indicate prospective dependency on the part of the claimant and potential support on the part of the

State v. Gunnell

132 Ohio St. 3d 442 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2012

The district court dismissed their petitions, concluding that the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial “was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law as declared by the United States Supreme Court.” … And it certainly did not establish whether that bias, if any, could be cured by further instruction from the court.