Case law

Smith v. Safe Auto Insurance

179 Ohio App. 3d 240 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2008

The appraisal, however, clearly stated that the appraiser had no authority to authorize repairs. … Accordingly, the Smiths did not establish a prima facie case of equitable estoppel, and Safe Auto was entitled to judgment on the Smiths’ second cause of action.

Ernst v. Ohio Department of Administrative Services

69 Ohio App. 3d 330 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 1990

Defendant further maintains that the waiver of sovereign immunity is very narrow. … The Court of Claims, on the other hand, clearly has jurisdiction to decide this matter.

N.T. v. J.W.

2024 Ohio 1513 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2024

Davis, 2008-Ohio-2, ¶ 171 (“the Davis case”), the Supreme Court of Ohio set forth four elements which must be established in order for evidence to qualify, and be admitted, as a business record under Evid.R. 803(6): (1) … [His] immune system is low and he uses an inhaler. . . . She . . . remembers filling out an affidavit of her expenses for [CSEA] and her expenses haven’t changed.

LaBounty v. Big 3 Automotive

2019 Ohio 1919 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 17, 2019

was qualified to testify as an expert in this matter under Evid.R. 702(B). … Moreover, appellants introduced no evidence to establish the extent of their damages, if any.

State, Ex Rel. Schuchman v. Porterfield, Dir.

104 Ohio App. 335 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 1957

It is basic law that a peremptory writ of mandamus will not be issued unless the relator is clearly entitled thereto. … Therefore, since such nominee was certified by the commission on September 6, 1955, as qualified after a noncompetitive examination, his rights are spelled out by Section 143.23, which provides, in part, as follows: am *

City of Dayton v. Combs

94 Ohio App. 3d 291 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1993

At trial, Haller initially refused to answer any questions on the basis of the Fifth Amendment but agreed to testify after the trial court granted him immunity from prosecution for gambling. … court could only have permitted the city to impeach these witnesses by their prior written witness statements if those statements were excluded from the “affirmative damage” requirement of Evid.R. 607 by virtue of their qualifying

Guillory v. Dept. of Rehab. Corr., 07ap-861 (5-8-2008)

2008 Ohio 2299 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 8, 2008

R. 12(B) clearly permits a party to file, in lieu of an answer, motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of jurisdiction. Civ. … It is well-established that the Court of Claims *Page 9 lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over alleged violations of constitutional rights and claims arising under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S. Code (" § 1983").

State v. Odums

2026 Ohio 2171 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2026

Odums argues that the trial court should have acquitted him because he established an affirmative defense. … To qualify for the affirmative defense, the individual must notify the sheriff of their change of address by telephone after learning their new address.

Buckeye Inst. v. Kilgore

181 N.E.3d 1272 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2021

Employers generally have a duty to withhold municipal income tax on qualifying wages paid to an employee, unless (subject to some exceptions) the employee performed twenty or fewer days of such services in the municipal corporation … Appellants define this issue as, "[c]an the 20-Day Rule establish the constitutionality of extraterritorial municipal taxation?"

Westropp v. E. W. Scripps Co.

76 Ohio App. 463 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1944

To us, however, it seems the better rule that the general one be followed in per quod cases where proof has been made by a defendant which tends to establish the defense of qualified privilege. … The only defamatory matter of which plaintiff complained was the cartoon, which is clearly not a report of a judicial proceeding.

State v. Wilson

154 N.E.3d 208 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2020

The parents sought to establish that the district was not entitled to sovereign immunity because the bus driver had been negligent in his operation of 26 … Thus, the legislature had tacitly tied that provision to the immunity statute.

State v. Diamond

2024 Ohio 473 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2024

A matter is “clear and convincing” if it “produce[s] in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. … Accordingly, the issue on appeal is not whether the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings are clearly and convincingly supported by the record, as Diamond contends, but rather, whether the record clearly and convincingly

Board of Education of City School District v. Ferguson

68 Ohio App. 514 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 15, 1941

The authority of boards of education is derived solely-from the statutes, both duties and authority being clearly defined by legislation and is limited strictly to such powers as are expressly granted or clearly implied. … If payment for the meals of the pupils who would qualify under this section was made by the board, it would be paid to the cafeteria fund and based upon a per capita allowance.

Murdock v. Village of Ottawa Hills, Unpublished Decision (9-10-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1999

To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination in hiring under Title VII, a complainant must show: "* * * (i) That he belongs to a [protected class] ; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which … Being the son of a former union organizer is clearly not a protected class pursuant to R.C. 4112.02 .

State v. Lawson

2020 Ohio 3004 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 19, 2020

While our analysis might be different had this case been tried to a jury, here the record clearly reveals that the trial court rested its judgment not on the GPS data, but almost exclusively on the eyewitness testimony of … trier of fact but must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly

In re C.D.

2024 Ohio 6047 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2024

While probate courts -- like the courts of common pleas -- are provided for in the Ohio Constitution, juvenile courts were established by statute. … Chapters 2151 and 2152 generally -- gives the juvenile court authority to grant immunity from prosecution for a criminal act. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Kirby, 2023-Ohio-782, ¶ 15.

Asriian v. Pribish

2026 Ohio 1650 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 7, 2026

This court has also held that an abuse of discretion may be found where a trial court “applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact.” … Tilton’s specialized knowledge based on years of experience was enough to establish the reliability of Tilton’s testimony.

Douglass v. Salem Community Hospital

153 Ohio App. 3d 350 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2003

not qualified to make, an examination of his deposition demonstrates that he is not qualified to make other statements, which, on first blush, appear to be proper. … A duty may be established by common law, legislative enactment, or by the particular facts *365 and circumstances of the case. Eisenhuth v.

Erickson v. Mgt. & Training

2013 Ohio 3864 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2013

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts noted that the department of corrections cannot have immunity from liability based upon an inmate’s lack of standing to sue as a third party beneficiary and also enjoy immunity by delegating … Because Civ.R. 8 clearly establishes that Ohio is a notice-pleading state, Ohio law does not ordinarily require a plaintiff to plead operative 15 facts with particularity

Abdalla v. Olexia, Unpublished Decision (10-6-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1999

Appellees asserted that Appellant's claims were barred as a matter of law by the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2744. … conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.