Case law

State ex rel. Peterson v. Durkin

129 Ohio St. 3d 213 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2011

Peterson v. Durkin, 129 Ohio St.3d 213, 2011-Ohio-2639.] THE STATE EX REL. PETERSON, APPELLANT, v. DURKIN, JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Peterson v. … Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 402, 2010-Ohio-1808, 928 N.E.2d 722, ¶ 4; Watkins v.

State v. Smith

50 Ohio St. 2d 51 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1977

Commonwealth v. … Brown, Steen and Sweeney, JJ., concur. HeRbeet, Celebrezze and Locher, JJ., dissent. Stern, J., retired, assigned to active duty under authority of Section 6(C), Article IV, Constitution, sitting for P. Brown, J.

In re Gall

47 Ohio St. 3d 136 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1989

V(9)(a)(iii), is dismissed as moot. Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Miami Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc.

81 Ohio St. 3d 269 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1998

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MIAMI TOWNSHIP, APPELLEE, v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, OHIO LABOR COUNCIL, INC., APPELLANT. [Cite as Miami Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. … Jones v. Franklin Cty.

Reeves v. Thomas, Warden

122 Ohio St. 22 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1930

The effect of Section 2166 was to place all persons sentenced under this indeterminate sentence law under the jurisdiction of the Ohio board of administration (now board of clemency, Sections 91 and 92, General Code), and … We cannot take the view that the board has the power to reduce the minimum fixed by the trial judge.

State Ex Rel. Mansfield v. Turnbull

132 Ohio St. 235 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1937

Curtis, Safety Dir., v. State, ex rel. Morgan, 108 Ohio St., 292 , 140 N. E., 522 , paragraph 3 of the syllabus. … Eden, v. Kundts et al., Bd. of. Trustees, 127 Ohio St., 276 , 188 N. E., 9 .

State ex rel. Lawrence v. American Lubricants Co.

40 Ohio St. 3d 321 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1988

Jennings, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 1 Ohio St. 3d 101 , 1 OBR 135, 438 N.E. 2d 420 . In State, ex rel. Stephenson, v. Indus. … Brown, JJ., concur. Sweeney and Douglas, JJ., dissent.

Cleveland-Sandusky Brewing Corp. v. Evatt

146 Ohio St. 7 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1945

The Board of Tax Appeals made the following- finding and order: “The board finds that no additional proof has been submitted to this board of any certainty which is sufficient to rebut the presumption of validity which at … See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Evatt, Tax Commr., 143 Ohio St., 71 , 54 N.

Trumbull County Bar Ass'n v. Bellew

143 Ohio St. 3d 1298 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2015

Bar Assn. v. Bellew, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2015-Ohio-3697.] TRUMBULL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BELLEW. [Cite as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. … V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2).

State ex rel. Dean v. Hall

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 710 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1926

State ex rel. Mitchell v. Frederick

176 Ohio St. 3d 591 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 16, 2024

Orr v. … See Pollock v.

Peters v. Peters

14 Ohio St. 2d 268 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1968

Thus, the reasons stated in the majority opinion in Seitz v. Seitz, supra, for distinguishing Tullis v. Tullis, supra, indicate that Seitz v. Seitz, supra, overruled Tullis v. Tullis, supra. … ZimmermaN, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Troop and BrowN, JJ., concur. Troop, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for SOHNEIDER, J,

Holladay Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission

61 Ohio St. 2d 335 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1980

Brown, J. I. Appellant argues primarily that D P & L has violated R. … See Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1962), 173 Ohio St. 478 , paragraph ten of the syllabus.

Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Lazzaro

98 Ohio St. 3d 509 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 7, 2003

A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ discipline-by-consent agreement. … Disciplinary Counsel v. Baker (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 302 , 603 N.E.2d 990 ; and Disciplinary Counsel v.

Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Wuerth

122 Ohio St. 3d 594 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 29, 2009

For instance, in Browning v. Burt (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 544, 556 , 613 N.E.2d 993 , we explained that “[a] hospital does not practice medicine and is incapable of committing malpractice.” Browning cites Lombard v. … Id. at 188 , 16 O.O. 185 , 24 N.E.2d 705 , citing Herron v. Youngstown (1940), 136 Ohio St. 190 , 16 O.O. 188 , 24 N.E.2d 708 ; Bello v. Cleveland (1922), 106 Ohio St. 94 , 138 N.E. 526 ; Brown v.

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rossi

81 Ohio St. 3d 195 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1998

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROSSI. [Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rossi, 1998-Ohio-634.] … After respondent filed his answer, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on May 7, 1997.

Sexton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

69 Ohio St. 2d 431 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1982

In Bartlett v. Nationwide Mutl. Ins. … Brown, Sweeney and C. Brown, JJ., concur. Locher, Holmes and Krupansky, JJ., dissent. State Farm admits that Sexton qualifies as an insured under its definition (1).

Chambers v. St. Mary's School

82 Ohio St. 3d 563 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1998

Stephens v. … . {¶ 23} The OBBC constitutes administrative rules proposed and adopted by the Board of Building Standards, an administrative agency, whose members are appointed by the Governor.

City of Columbus v. Public Utilities Commission

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 42 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1964

Much evidence was offered before the board, some of which is conflicting. … Fouss v. Bowers, Tax Commr., 171 Ohio St., 226 . Prom an examination of the record in this case, this court is of the opinion that the order of the board is neither unreasonable nor unlawful.

In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against David Gussler Lombardi

2018 Ohio 5173 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2018

After a review by a probable-cause panel of the board under Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(B), the director of the board filed a formal complaint on October 18, 2018. … After a review by a probable-cause panel of the board under Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(B), the director of the board filed a formal complaint on October 18, 2018.