Case law

Maggiore v. Board of Liquor Control

115 Ohio App. 131 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1961

Brown of Bexley, Ohio, as a citizen, taxpayer and *132 purchaser of beer and malt beverages, have appealed to this court on questions of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County. … In that court, the appeal of Maggiore and Brown from the action of the Board of Liquor Control, appellee herein, in adopting regulation No. 69, establishing a minimum markup of 25 per cent on carry-out sales of beer and malt

Ilich v. Board of Liquor Control

88 Ohio Law. Abs. 488 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1959

Since that time, on May 13, 1959, the Supreme Court of Ohio announced its decision in the case of State v. … (The ninth paragraph of the syllabus of Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St., 475 , overruled.)”

Toth v. State, Board of Review

116 Ohio App. 258 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 1962

Oglesbey v. National Box Board Co.

27 Ohio C.C. Dec. 487 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1913

Defendant in error, in support of its contention, relies upon the case of National Cash Register Co. v. Closs, 32 O. C. C. 649 (12 N. S. 15). … C., which expressly provides that the certificate must be on the same sheet on which the instrument is written or printed and which was construed in Winkler v.

Board of Park Commissioners v. Krumreig

97 Ohio App. 135 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1953

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors has fully considered the reports of the district and division engineers and the information presented by local interests at hearings before the board. … That said dock or small-boat landing when completed shall be termed and known as The Port of Lakewood * * V’ The mayor of Lakewood notified the army engineers that legislation providing for a suitable boat landing with adequate

Cheh v. Board of Liquor Control

78 Ohio Law. Abs. 333 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1956

This is an appeal by the Board of Liquor Control from a judgment *334 of the Common Pleas Court finding that the order of the Board with respect to charge No. 4 is not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence … The permittee files a cross-appeal from that portion of the judgment affirming the order of the Board with respect to charge No. 2.

Seitz v. Ohio State Medical Board

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 813 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1927

In proceedings under 1275 GC., to revoke certificate to practice medicine, motion by physician to comnel medical board to file petition in Common Pleas setting forth issues *814 on which case would be tried was properly overruled

Markel v. Ohio State Medical Board

62 Ohio App. 3d 105 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1989

Lytle v. Baldinger (1911), 84 Ohio St. 1 , 8, 95 N.E. 389 , 390. … Commrs. v.

Limerick v. Euclid Board of Education

69 Ohio App. 3d 807 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1990

Petrey v. Simon (1984), 19 Ohio App.3d 285 , 19 OBR 456, 484 N.E.2d 257 . … Person v. Gum (1983), 7 Ohio App.3d 307 , 7 OBR 390, 455 N.E.2d 713 . If there is no duty imposed by law, there can be no legal liability for negligence. Moncol v.

Holthaus v. Cincinnati Board of Education

76 Ohio App. 3d 443 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1991

The employment-at-will doctrine of Mers v. … Furthermore, a mere subjective expectation of continued employment is not protected by procedural due process without the board’s policies and practices rising to the level of implied tenure. Perry v.

Franklin v. Columbus Board of Education

1 Ohio App. 3d 134 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1981

(Some of the revocations were delivered in March 1979, but the board would not accept them at that time.) The board recognized and approved the revocation statements as of August 30, 1979. … Whereupon, OAPSE filed a grievance with the board charging the board with breach of Article II of the contract. An arbitrator decided the issues in OAPSE’s favor.

Ackerman v. Lucas County Children Services Board

49 Ohio App. 3d 14 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1989

A case summary presented to the trial court prior to its ruling in this matter shows a long history of involvement by both the ap-pellee, the Children Services Board (“LCCSB”), and the Fulton County Department of Human Services … Lawrence Development Co., v. Weir (1983), 11 Ohio App. 3d 96, 97 , 11 OBR 148, 149, 463 N.E. 2d 398, 399 .

Neale v. Board of Liquor Control

80 Ohio Law. Abs. 587 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1958

This cause is on for hearing on motion of the appellee, Board of Liquor Control, for an order dismissing the appeal for the reason that appellant has filed no assignment of error in the cause.

Page v. Board of Liquor Control

72 Ohio Law. Abs. 346 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 1954

Our problem is the construction of three Regulations of the Board of Liquor Control, to wit: Regulation No. 11, Regulation No. 12, and Regulation No. 65. … Failure of the Department to do so within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection of such applications and may be the basis of an appeal to the Board.”

Allesandro v. Board of Liquor Control

72 Ohio Law. Abs. 525 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1953

cause be remanded to the Board of Liquor Control for rehearing with instructions to consider the deposition of the witness, Robert Stewart, or in the alternative that he be brought before the Liquor Control Board on rehearing … Reliance is had upon Power and Light Company v. Smith, 126 Oh St 611. We are inclined to agree that the citation supports appellee’s claim.

Klein v. Realty Board Investors, Inc.

14 Ohio Law. Abs. 545 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 2, 1933

Bugh v Sturgeon, 41 Oh St, 402; Chapman v Lee, 45 Oh St, 356. … See also Cincinnati Traction Company v Bank, 9 Oh Ap, 414. The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained. Exceptions may be noted. SHERICK, PJ, and LEMERT, J, concur.

Cleveland Met. Park Board v. Kettlewell

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 393 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 1923

.: Epitomized Opinion Appropriation proceedings were brought before Judge Addams of the Insolvency Court of Cleveland, by the Cleveland Metropolitan Park Board against Charles and James Kettlewell.

Joseph v. Board of Liquor Control

109 Ohio App. 477 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 1959

The appellants duly filed an appeal to the Board of Liquor Control, and also filed with the Board a motion as follows: “Now come the appellants herein and move the Board of Liquor Control for an order requiring the Department … C., which prescribes the powers of the Board, and find no authority conferred on the Board to issue the order requested. Neither is such power conferred by §119.09 R.

Neale v. Board of Liquor Control

109 Ohio App. 94 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1959

We agree that the appeal was on questions of law only as the case was tried upon the record made before the Board and without the offering of any additional reference. See Andrews v. … In the case of Henry v. Henry, 157 Oh St 319, it is said in paragraph 3 of the syllabus: “1.

Moore v. Board of County Commissioners

8 Ohio Law. Abs. 147 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1929

Commissioners v. Mighels, 7 OS. 109 . Grimwood v. Commissioners, 23 OS. 600 . Commissioners v. Marietta Transfer & Storage Co., 75 OS. 244 . Ebert v. Commissioners, 75 OS. 474 . Commissioners v. Darst, 96 OS. 163 . … Our attention has been called to the case of Smith et al., v. Commissioners, 50 OS. 628 .