Case law

Lloyd v. Cleveland Clinic Found.

2019 Ohio 1885 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 16, 2019

If qualified privilege is demonstrated, then the plaintiff must demonstrate express malice, which is ill will, hatred, revenge, or wanton and reckless disregard for the truth on the defendant's part. Id. at 248. … Based on the foregoing, the trial court clearly did not abuse its discretion when it denied Lloyd’s motion for sanctions. {¶28} Therefore, the second assignment of error is overruled.

Blackwell v. International Union, United Auto Workers Local No. 1250

21 Ohio App. 3d 110 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 24, 1984

When the rights of parties are clearly defined and established by law, the courts usually apply the maxim “equity follows the law.” Cf. Assn. of Cuyahoga Cty. Teachers of Trainable Retarded v. Cuyahoga Cty. … Clearly, the court considered the reliability of future payments as a factor in fashioning the judgment.

State, Ex Rel. Keville v. Faurot

44 Ohio App. 461 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 1933

Crow and Kinder are of the opinion that the ordinance adopted by the City Commission, dividing the city into six wards, is without authority and null and void, under §25 of the amended charter, inasmuch as that section clearly … As stated before, the new charter specifically provides that the officers shall continue to hold their respective offices and to function, until the new order is inaugurated and established.

Hopkins v. Certificate of Qualification for Emp.

2025 Ohio 1072 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2025

Hopkins did not establish the CQE will materially assist him in obtaining employment or an occupational license; (3) Mr. … Hopkins did not establish he has a substantial need for the CQE in order to live a law- abiding life; and (4) Mr.

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

2020 Ohio 891 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2020

services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.' " Franks 3R.C. 2743.02(A)(1) provides the state "waives its immunity … Even the use of a cane will not conclusively establish a substantial limitation of the major life activity of walking. Curtis v.

Coleman v. Excello-Textron Corp.

60 Ohio App. 3d 32 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1989

The law in Ohio regarding directed verdicts is well-established. … Clearly, the case was properly given to the jury in order to resolve both the “defective” product and “breach of due care” theories of recovery.

Henry v. Consolidated Stores International Corp.

89 Ohio App. 3d 417 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 1993

Ohio courts have held that a defendant’s immunity defense against a plaintiff is also a defense against a co-defendant’s claim for contribution. See, e.g., Moler v. … Appellee has brought no case to our attention, nor has our research disclosed any, which would establish such a *424 requirement.

Hagan v. Cleveland Times Square Holdings/Six Points L.L.C.

2013 Ohio 5128 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2013

The court erred where it adopted the Arbitrators’ Report when the appraisals upon which the report were based were so clearly flawed and inconsistent. … Hudson can establish no prejudice from the differing dates on the appraisals and acknowledges the existence of both appraisals.

State v. Barrie

2016 Ohio 5640 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2016

Therefore, weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and considering the credibility of the witnesses, we cannot find that the jury, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, clearly lost its way and created such … Thereafter, the trial court qualified Dabo as an interpreter.

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

168 N.E.3d 583 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 2021

"If a claimant establishes a prima facie case of defamation, a defendant may then invoke a conditional or qualified privilege." Jackson at ¶ 9, citing A & B-Abell at 7, citing Hahn v. … Once established, a qualified privilege can be defeated by a clear and convincing showing that the communication was made with actual malice.

Rainey v. Shaffer

8 Ohio App. 3d 262 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 1983

R.C. 2305.11(A) establishes a one-year statute of limitations for the commencement of an action in slander. … In determining the existence and nature of a slander in the employment reference setting as presented by the instant case, a qualified privilege exists.

State ex rel. Accurate Inventory & Calculating Servs. v. Buehrer

2016 Ohio 7004 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2016

This Committee, however, has no discretion to deviate from the classes established by NCCI or manipulate established rates. … That is clearly the case here.

Plant v. Bd. of County Comm., Wayne Co., Unpublished Decision (12-13-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2000

A qualified nuisance is premised upon negligence. To recover damages for a qualified nuisance, negligence must be averred and proven. Brown v. Scioto Cty. … Having already found that Plant failed establish the elements of negligence and therefore the existence of a qualified nuisance we find Plant can not show that she falls under an exception listed in R.C. 2744.02 .

State v. Cobb

2014 Ohio 3530 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 2014

Even if R.C. 2929.13(B) were applicable, Cobb would not necessarily qualify for community control because her most serious charge was a third-degree felony. … Cobb suffers from lupus, non- immune hemolytic anemia, and possibly bone marrow failure. As a result, she requires frequent blood transfusions.

Lepkowski v. Wild Wings Camp & Boat-O-Minimum Water Slip Condominium Owners' Assn.

259 N.E.3d 75 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 2024

The photographs clearly depict the gap between the third and fourth floating docks and the center piling which extends several feet above the dock. Lepkowski’s expert admits this 11. … Conclusion {¶ 31} Based on the foregoing, Lepkowski failed to establish a genuine issue of material facts supporting his premises liability claim.

Moser v. Moser

72 Ohio App. 3d 575 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 1991

Thus, coupled with the additional evidence adduced by appellant as to the deteriorating relationship, I would hold that appellant established prima facie grounds for his complaint. … Furthermore, as was recognized by the majority, the trial court’s exclusion of Miss Moser as a witness was clearly contrary to the law of Ohio.

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.

State v. Whiteside, 08ap-602 (4-23-2009)

2009 Ohio 1893 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 2009

However, immunity is not appropriate in the either/or situation; it could actually hinder the search for truth. … Moreover, plain error does not exist unless the appellant establishes that the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different but for the trial court's allegedly improper actions. State v.

Oakley v. Nolan, 06ca22 (5-25-2007)

2007 Ohio 2794 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 25, 2007

The public policy of guaranteeing the free flow of information in a judicial proceeding is the reason for the immunity or privilege. Id. at 234 . … This immunity or privilege extends to "every step in the proceeding, from beginning to end." M.J. DiCorpo, Inc. v.

State v. Emch

7 Ohio App. 3d 7 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 21, 1982

Thus, there was established as to this area of evidence a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. … This may be evidenced by a qualified expert. “ ‘C. The witness using the appartus [sic] as the source of his testimony must be one qualified for its use by training and experience. ’ ” (Emphasis sic.)