Case law

Williams v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

67 Ohio App. 3d 517 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 1, 1990

Evid.R. 607 and 608 clearly prohibit this type of examination by appellant. … Assuming that appellant can show that procedures established within a penal institution are not characterized by a high degree of official judgment and, thus, avoid the issue of sovereign immunity, his argument is difficult

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.

State v. Miller

2022 Ohio 2049 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2022

Appellant did not have an expectation of “an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or implied grant, arising out of status, position, office, or relationship, or growing out of necessity.” … While I agree such scenario may sound like trespass, I find it is legally insufficient to establish the crime.

Lee v. Upper Arlington, Unpublished Decision (12-30-2003)

2003 Ohio 7157 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2003

, but, as plaintiff contends, by a qualified immunity, Fifth Third still is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff failed to present evidence, as set forth in Civ.R. 56(C), creating a genuine issue of material … Without some showing that Fifth Third either acted with malice, rather than in good faith, or lacked probable cause, plaintiff is unable to prevail against Fifth Third's defense of qualified immunity. See Hahn v.

State v. Hicks

88 Ohio App. 3d 515 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1993

The Supreme Court was clearly correct in its decision that the acts attributed to Suchomski could constitute such a violation. … Six years as a police officer and a one-week training course do not establish sufficient expertise to permit the officer to give expert opinion that involves weighing of a variety of legal, physical and psychological factors

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.

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

Grote v. J.S. Mayer & Co.

59 Ohio App. 3d 44 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1990

Expert testimony is usually necessary to establish the recognized standards of the medical community by which the defendant's performance is measured in medical-malpractice cases, and the failure to establish those standards … Grote's contention that he could qualify himself as an expert is without merit. A witness qualified by knowledge, skill, experience* training or education may testify as an expert. Evid. R. 702.

Helms v. Armsey, Unpublished Decision (3-15-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2000

"However, public officials are nonetheless protected from civil liability by qualified immunity where applicable." Moore v. Hayman (1990), 67 Ohio App.3d 184 , 188 . … Public officials are protected by qualified immunity unless the law, in the light of the legal rules clearly established at the time, clearly proscribes the actions that they took. Id.

Maxwell v. Chew Publishing Co.

43 Ohio Law. Abs. 538 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 17, 1945

This case states the law in Ohio definitely and clearly, and the question now arises as to whether or not the operation in the painting of this building was inherently dangerous, and if so the Court was in error in instructing … In the case of Bedford v City of Cleveland Heights, 18 O O 319, Judge Lausche said: “The law in Ohio also seems to be clearly established that the immunity against liability of a principal when work has been let to an independent

State v. Bennett

2022 Ohio 4471 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2022

the issue which is to be established before them. … Brief of Appellant at 6. {¶18} “‘Privilege’ means an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or implied grant, arising out of status, position, office, or relationship, or growing out of

Brunswick Ltd. Partnership v. Brunswick

2024 Ohio 3351 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 2024

“The language used in the statute clearly and succinctly requires that the notice of appeal be filed with the board appealed from, as opposed to the court appealed to.” (Emphasis in original.) Guysinger v. … According to the testimony at the hearing, FNB is an FDIC insured national banking organization, and the parties agree that it qualifies as a “Financial Institution.”

6800 Avery Rd., L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision

107 N.E.3d 220 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 2018

No. 17AP-363 10 "clearly used more than just the auditor's records to establish values." Id. at ¶ 31. … Appellant did not attempt to qualify Polina as an expert in property value and has not argued that Polina so qualifies.

State v. Hayes

2019 Ohio 1629 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2019

. {¶5} On February 6, 2018, a bond hearing was held and bond was established at $2,500 cash or surety with application of the 10 percent provision. … (ii) If the offense is a qualifying assault offense, the offender caused serious physical harm to another person while committing the offense, and, if the offense is not a qualifying assault offense, the offender

Leroy v. Allen Yurasek Merklin, Unpublished Decision (8-29-2005)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2005

The second issue involves Appellees' participation in the preparation of a will, which was allegedly drafted for Decedent in November of 2001. {¶ 11} Attorneys in Ohio enjoy a qualified immunity from liability to a third … immunity set forth in Simon v.

Hardin v. Johnson

30 Ohio App. 2d 19 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 1971

Perhaps not more so than another state since it is expected that state governments are all confronted with that age-long battle between the spoils system and established civil service tenures. … It is clearly ascertainable. Under decision law there is a clear legal duty to offset it against the amount claimed.

In re A.B.C.

2011 Ohio 531 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2011

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN QUALIFYING DR. STEINER AS AN ORTHOPEDICS AND RADIOLOGY EXPERT. {¶22} “V. … The child bruised after being given immunizations and after blood draws by medical personnel.

State v. White

2022 Ohio 1707 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 23, 2022

CA2018-05-101, 2019-Ohio-1492 ¶ 9. {¶ 15} In this case, the record firmly establishes that the trial court considered all relevant statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 prior to issuing its sentencing … The record further establishes the trial court sentenced White within the permissible statutory ranges for first-degree felony rape and second-degree felony pandering obscenity involving a minor.

State v. Reed

2021 Ohio 858 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2021

The trial court denied this motion finding the other acts the state intended to introduce pertained to the elements of menacing by stalking specifically, establishing a pattern of conduct against A.S. and additionally establishing … He first faults counsel's failure to object to Scarbrough testifying as an expert when the state never qualified nor tendered her as such.

Solomon v. Harwood

2011 Ohio 5268 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2011

Scholler (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 98, 462 N.E.2d 158, the Ohio Supreme Court held that attorneys have a qualified immunity from liability to third parties for acts or omissions concerning the representation of a client. … Solomon and Harwood clearly had opposing interests; therefore, they were not in privity to each other. {¶ 28} Thus, the fifth assignment of error is overruled.