Case law

Bibee v. Gen. Revenue Corp.

2013 Ohio 1753 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 1, 2013

The trial granted summary judgment on the complaint in its entirety, concluding that she had failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. … Bibee could not qualify as disabled under federal or Ohio law. The trial court properly granted summary judgment to GRC.

Zaras v. City of Findlay

112 Ohio App. 367 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1960

Shafer as to the cost of restoration or repairs, except as hereinafter qualified with reference to the party wall, was admissible. … Whether the remittitur would serve to cure such error we will hereafter establish. Assignment of error No. 3.

Dixon v. General Motors Corp.

102 Ohio App. 3d 605 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1994

Clearly, a dual capacity theory is unsupported by the evidentiary materials before the court. … While GMC would bear the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists on its motion for summary judgment, Harless v.

State v. Brown

2014 Ohio 2878 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2014

He also indicated he requested immunity. During his interview with police, a detective discussed immunity with Holley before Holley was sent to appellant’s home wearing a wire. … Trial counsel was aware that an immunity deal had been made.

State v. Long

176 N.E.3d 334 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2021

In context, the trial court determined, "this is clearly a threat. … The trial court recited that "prosecutors * * * have absolute immunity from suit," citing Imbler, 424 U.S. 409, and that "of course the trial judges have absolute immunity as well."

Sansone v. Cleveland

31 Ohio Law. Abs. 246 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 1940

The court held that while no cause of action, based upon negligence, was stated, in view of the city’s immunity from liability for negligence in the performance of governmental functions, the jury was warranted in finding … The city cites the case of City of Cleveland v Walker, 52 Oh Ap 477, wherein it was established that the operation of parks and skating ponds are governmental functions and, therefore, the city should not be liable.

Colonial Furniture Co. v. Cleveland Union Terminals Co.

47 Ohio App. 399 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1934

Trustees of Village of Canandaigua, 124 N.Y. 602 , 27 N.E. 385 : "The doctrine, however, is well established in this state, that public officers lawfully employed in making public improvements, and corporations engaged in … The terms of this act clearly indicate that this section does not apply to the construction period of a terminal project.

Abbott v. Jarrett Reclamation Services, Inc.

132 Ohio App. 3d 729 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 1999

The evidence clearly establishes that despite the fact that Jarrett had knowledge of and received the safety procedures that pertained to the job in question, Jarrett did not request that such safety equipment be present … While plaintiffs experts testified that the Jarrett crew was not qualified to excavate the deeper trenches and that Rick Jarrett was not qualified to be a *747 safety supervisor on the deeper trenches, these opinions are

Meyer v. Dayton

2016 Ohio 8080 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 2016

Under the “two-inch” rule, established by the Ohio Supreme Court in Cash v. … Immunity {¶ 31} Dayton argued that it was also entitled to summary judgment because it is immune from liability under R.C. 2744, the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act.

Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

2013 Ohio 5698 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 24, 2013

The duty element of a negligence claim may be established by common law, legislative enactment, or the particular circumstances of a given case. … This definition is helpful to the present case, though not controlling. {¶ 14} Although Morgan and Rahman are clearly not on all fours with the present case because of their differing facts, they are the most applicable

Kintyhtt v. Barberton, Unpublished Decision (7-27-2005)

2005 Ohio 3799 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2005

Assignment of Error Number Two "The trial court erred in determining that appellee was entitled to qualified immunity under [R.C.] 2744.02(B)(1)(a)[.]" {¶ 5} In their two assignments of error, Appellants have argued that … The trial court reviewed the motions and determined that, based upon Colbert, Morber established that he was engaged in a "call to duty" when the accident occurred and, as a result, Appellee was immune from liability for

Harris v. Ford Motor Co.

166 Ohio App. 3d 599 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2006

. {¶ 11} R.C. 1345.75 establishes a cause of action against any manufacturer who fails to comply with R.C. 1345.72, which addresses the duty of the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer to conform new motor vehicles … Thus, in order to assert the failure to exhaust administrative remedies as á defense, it must be clearly and expressly pleaded. {¶ 23} Here, Ford failed to assert Harris’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies in its

Bingham v. Wilmington Bd. of Zoning Appeals

2013 Ohio 61 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2013

permit," on the other hand, is a permit which may be issued when a specific land use is allowed only after certain requirements are met. 2008 Zoning Regulations 1163.01; 1163.02. {¶ 10} Though these terms are clearly … in order to qualify as a nonconforming use.

Rodriguez v. Catholic Charities Corp.

2025 Ohio 4840 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2025

Catholic Charities appealed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling concerning statutory immunity, and this court affirmed, finding that Catholic Charities was not entitled to political subdivision immunity under R.C … Indeed, it was established in more ways than one.

Ladd v. Ohio Counselor & Social Worker Board

76 Ohio App. 3d 323 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1991

Specifically, the board contends that the trial court erred in interpreting the educational requirements necessary to establish that appellee could be licensed pursuant to Section 4(E) of Am.Sub.H.B. No. 205. … 4757-5-01, to qualify as a counselor without clinical endorsement status.

State v. Otten

33 Ohio App. 3d 339 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 1986

However, the statute clearly limits a resident’s private unrestricted visitation right to situations where a “reasonable request” has first been made. … However, this testimony was properly found by the trial court to be hearsay and was admitted into evidence for the limited purpose of establishing that Otten believed that Hill desired to see him.

Foy v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

2017 Ohio 1065 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2017

August 12, 2016, DRC filed a second motion for summary judgment both as to the claims alleged by appellant and the personal immunity of Dr. … Rather, ODRC's affidavit established only that Dr.

Wetzel v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

2016 Ohio 5355 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2016

Since insurance coverage was clearly intended to include Marc Edward, Appellants believe he should receive the same benefits as a named insured. … Part C of the policy, the underinsured coverage provisions, specifically establishes that an “insured” is the named insured, a family member of the named insured, or anyone occupying the covered automobile.

State v. Keeton

2019 Ohio 2039 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 24, 2019

He also stresses her testimony that no genetic testing was done to establish parentage, that he is not listed on the child’s birth certificate, that no announcements were sent out saying that she and Keeton had a child, … Nor did the State argue that Keeton qualified as the putative father of one of the victim’s children.

State v. Mabberly

2019 Ohio 891 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2019

In his second assignment, he argues that the jury clearly lost its way in evaluating the evidence and, as a result, returned verdicts that constitute a miscarriage of justice. … Witnesses, jurors and judges are not immune to this reality. This is not abnormal.