Case law

In re P.C.

2021 Ohio 1238 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2021

“It is well established that if a party fails to object at the trial court level, that party waives all but plain error.” In re L.L., 3d Dist. … Ohio Revised Code Section 3313.671 requires proof of required immunizations for a child to attend school.

Lenhart v. Hanna

31 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 577 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1920

testify that a strict regard for such practice is universally observed by them, and that in the use of tools and instruments used for carrying on their business, a like regard for cleanliness is shown to insure customers immunity … As has been said “the human body is but a .reservoir for the accumulation of disease with its activities not limited to country or climate,” hence it is that the note of caution is sounded by those best qualified to speak

Smith v. Clement

2024 Ohio 5220 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2024

The BOE determined there were 180 valid signatures and that established the sufficiency of the petition. … The relators have clearly mistaken their course of procedure for amendment of the charter.

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.

Masek v. Marroulis, 2007-T-0034 (11-16-2007)

2007 Ohio 6159 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2007

Such immunity thus "negates any claim for injuries causally linked to false testimony." … It is well-settled that "[s]ummary judgment may be rendered where the pleadings and the arguments of the party seeking summary judgment clearly establish that the nonmoving party has no legally cognizable cause of action.

Price v. City of Akron

23 Ohio App. 513 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 1926

If a plan was adopted, the city could not claim immunity, on the ground of an “error in judgment,” for an act which diverted the water from said creek and cast it upon Price’s premises,-when, but for such act of the city, … According to 4 Dillon on Municipal Corporations (4 Ed.), Section 1739, the more modern authorities tend strongly to establish, and “rightly to establish, that a city may be liable on the ground of negligence in respect of

Koncsol v. City of Niles

105 Ohio App. 3d 535 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 1995

They claim that this statute creates an exception due to sovereign immunity and, therefore, any resulting causé of action arises by statute. … However, R.C. 2305.09(D) clearly states that the four-year statute of limitations is inapplicable to a case which is enumerated in R.C. 2305.10.

Kinney v. Kroger Co.

146 Ohio App. 3d 691 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2001

As appellee asserts, this statement is clearly hearsay. … See Hahn at 243, 72 O.O.2d 134 , 331 N.E.2d 713 (defenses such as qualified privilege may be invoked only after a prima facie case of defamation is established); Byvank v. Fidelity Orthopedic, Inc.

West Chester Twp. Bd. v. Speedway Superamerica, Ca2006-05-104 (6-11-2007)

2007 Ohio 2844 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2007

Accordingly, these uses do not comply with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Resolution, as required by Zoning Resolutions 21.04, 22.04, and 25.04, and thus cannot qualify as accessory uses. {¶ 32} Moreover, under … However, appellant has not met its burden of establishing a prima facie case of selective enforcement.

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.

Helfrich v. Madison

2012 Ohio 3701 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2012

In this case, the plaintiff made no effort to explain why the lawyers’ qualified immunity does not apply here, and his refusal to testify impliedly admits that he had no basis for such claim. Licking County App. … The amendment to the statute clearly removed the requirement that fees be necessitated by the frivolous conduct, and replaced it with Licking County App.

Lawson v. Foster

76 Ohio App. 3d 784 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 1992

court erred in reversing the Miami Township Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision as under the circumstances and facts presented to the board *788 by plaintiff-appellant-appellee (‘appellee’), the decision of the board was clearly … But Lawson did not establish that his mulch was used by the farming community, which was essential to *792 qualifying his mulching operation for consideration as the conditional use of “agricultural service.”

State v. Kittle

97 N.E.3d 1240 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2017

Collins, 799 F.3d 554, 586 (6th Cir.2015) (holding that a similar “MethCheck” record was “not clearly testimonial in nature,” and stating that “it is improbable that a pharmacy employee running a standard identification … Kittle cannot establish that she suffered prejudice and, consequently, cannot establish reversible error. Id. at ¶ 16. Ms.

State v. Smith

2025 Ohio 2086 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2025

The record demonstrates that Evers had the requisite education, training, and certification to qualify him as such an expert. … that the imposition of the maximum sentences was clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.

In Re Howell v. Dept. of Job, 08 Be 25 (3-27-2009)

2009 Ohio 1510 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2009

*Page 4 Medicaid Eligibility {¶ 15} The Medicaid program was established in 1965 under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, codified at Section 1396 et seq., Title 42, U.S. Code. … "A common pleas court abuses its discretion when its decision is without a reasonable basis or is clearly wrong." Abdalla's Tavern v. Dept. of Commerce, Div. of State Fire Marshall , 7th Dist.

Piispanen v. Carter, Unpublished Decision (5-12-2006)

2006 Ohio 2382 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 12, 2006

. {¶ 17} The Court set forth a three-tiered analysis to determine whether a political subdivision is immune from tort liability: The first tier is to establish immunity under R.C. 2744.02 (A)(1); the second tier is to analyze … . {¶ 18} For the purposes of the immunity statute, the Board qualifies for general immunity since a public school district is a "political subdivision" pursuant to R.C. 2744.01 (F), and providing a system of public education

Cuyahoga County Support Enforcement Agency v. Lozada

102 Ohio App. 3d 442 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1995

The review of support orders by the CSEA is clearly presented in R.C. 3111.27, which states as follows:. … Two, school loans do not qualify as ordinary and necessary business deductions for self-employed individuals.

State v. Killeen

2019 Ohio 2264 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2019

. {¶8} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence in the record to establish that the vacant parcel did not have a driveway that qualified as a … The testimony of the Village officials and the photographs of the vacant lot from before the tenant put down gravel support a finding that there was not a driveway on the lot that qualified as a nonconforming use or that

Stepp v. Wiseco Piston Co., Inc.

2013 Ohio 5832 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2013

The court determined that “Plaintiff clearly alleges that she potentially has a defamation claim arising from specific false statements that have been made about her.” … Civ.R. 34(D)(1) and (3)(a). {¶19} Wiseco’s first argument under its sole assignment of error is that Stepp’s Complaint is subject to dismissal on the grounds that the pleading fails to establish “that a viable cause

Butts v. Bjelovuk

129 Ohio App. 3d 134 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 1998

Furthermore, although we are aware that “an attorney is immune from liability to third persons arising from his performance as an attorney in good faith on behalf of, and with the knowledge of his client,” this does not hold … “Defendant-appellee’s failure to continue garnisheeing plaintiff-appellant’s wages clearly constituted a ‘withdrawal of the proceedings,’ and consequently qualified as a ‘termination in favor of the person against whom [the