Case law

Foxx v. Condon

2026 Ohio 1681 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 8, 2026

The motion further argued that Condon was entitled to immunity and that he had probable cause to arrest Foxx. {¶7} Because it was not permitted to consider the BWC footage when ruling on a motion to dismiss, the … Summary Judgment {¶12} In a single assignment of error, Foxx argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Condon. {¶13} Foxx contends that the trial court’s entry clearly establishes

Tiemann v. University of Cincinnati

127 Ohio App. 3d 312 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 1998

Clearly, the legislature did not intend to permit a nonparty to intervene in a Court of Claims action. … This court has also held: “In order to maintain a taxpayer’s action to either enjoin illegal conduct or compel legal conduct two prerequisites must be established.

Carter v. Karnes, Unpublished Decision (12-24-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 24, 2002

Accordingly, the court held that the sheriff's department was entitled to qualified immunity from liability and that the suit was barred under R.C. 2744.01 , et seq. … in R.C. 2744.02 (B) can be established in the present action.

State v. Allenbaugh

2021 Ohio 2177 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2021

The rationale is that “[b]ecause the Double Jeopardy Clause affords the defendant who obtains a judgment of acquittal at the trial level absolute immunity from further prosecution … reading must be established by a qualified officer’s testimony that the device was functional, duly tested, and properly used”). {¶14} This conclusion is consistent with the position taken by this court in treating

Chaney v. Clark County Agricultural Society, Inc.

90 Ohio App. 3d 421 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 1993

exemption was not clearly spelled out in the legislative history of either the 1961 or 1966 amendments. … Thus, we think the record clearly establishes that the appellant was “employed by an establishment which is an amusement or recreational establishment,” *427 Section 213(a)(3), and by an exhibit attached to the appellee’s

State v. Fields

2020 Ohio 4740 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 2020

It was established at trial that Jasmine placed, and then later deleted, calls to Baines and C.J. “right around the time” of the shooting. … We find that Drummond applies to the case at hand, because Ciula would have qualified as an expert had the state proffered him as one.

State v. Scott

104 N.E.3d 143 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 2018

First, Nance testified that the man who shot Joshua Hamilton “was wearing a white shirt and dark jeans,” but a “photograph admitted into evidence [at the hearing on Appellant’s motion to suppress] clearly established that … In light of these facts, we cannot conclude that the jury clearly lost its way.

State v. Polk

2016 Ohio 28 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 7, 2016

Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986) (qualified immunity No. 14AP-787 11 for government agents and police); Pierson v. … Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967) (judicial immunity). Moreover, statutory governmental immunity insulates actors in many cases, including in Ohio schools.

Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Morates

120 Ohio App. 315 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 1963

Webster’s Dictionary clearly gives these meanings to the word “dependent”: (1) Relying on or subject to someone else for support, and (2) unable to exist or sustain oneself without support or aid. … Under the first definition and the admitted facts, claimant qualifies as a dependent. Under the second, she does not.

Walker v. Ford Motor Co.

2014 Ohio 4208 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2014

It indicates clearly to the jury that the party having the burden of proof will be entitled to their verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find the greater amount of credible evidence … sustains the issue which is to be established before them.

Rogan v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (10-23-2006)

2006 Ohio 5508 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2006

As a result, we cannot restrict, qualify, narrow, or enlarge the statute. Instead, we must apply the statute without interpretation. … [then R.C. 4123.01(A)(2)]" The supreme court found that "[t]o qualify for statutory immunity from tort liability under R.C. 4123.741 , a person must be an `employee' as defined in R.C. 4123.01(A)(2)."

In Matter of Koehler, 07ap-913 (7-10-2008)

2008 Ohio 3472 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 2008

. {¶ 20} Having determined that appellee does not qualify as a first offender under the general rule, we must ascertain whether he qualifies under either of the exceptions. … The indictment and the information provided at the hearing, taken together, clearly establish that appellee's convictions resulted from his violating different sections of R.C. 2925.09 (A) on separate days over several years

Hawkins v. Hawkins

2017 Ohio 4201 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2017

Gregory also asserts that Ditty was not qualified to appraise the value of the muffler business. {¶ 12} “In reviewing the trial court's judgment, it is well established that every reasonable presumption must be … . {¶ 16} Initially, we note that both Deskins and Ditty were qualified as experts in the field of business valuation.

State ex rel. Campbell v. Dill

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 290 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 1927

Where the intention of the voter is clear and where the mistake is merely in the name, it is undoubted that a court may correct the description and enforce the clearly established and definite intention of the voters. ■ Here … Dill was entitled to hold over until a successor was legally elected and qualified. On June 11, 1927, the Advisory Board was reassembled and went through the form of electing Frank E.

Wright v. Harts Machine Servs., Inc.

2016 Ohio 4758 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2016

In so holding, the court examined Burger King’s argument that it was immune under the OPLA because it was not a “manufacturer, seller, or supplier of the coffee under R.C. 2307.71.” Id. at 589. … As noted above, the defendants in Nadel and Stratford were clearly subject to the OPLA as manufacturers under R.C. 2307.71.

State v. Price

80 Ohio App. 3d 35 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 14, 1992

Clearly, Price challenges only the time claimed for occurrence of the offense alleged, not the sufficiency of the document to charge the offense. … Shoe simply establishes that age is an essential element. Bowman does not preclude determination of age from circumstantial evidence. It only establishes that age must be proven in some manner.

Ware v. Ware

2014 Ohio 5410 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2014

Within 60 days, plaintiff's attorney shall prepare and submit to the Court a qualified order to transfer this account to the defendant." Divorce Decree at para. 12. {¶7}. … As noted in our recitation of facts, the divorce decree clearly awards appellee the entire deferred compensation account, "free and clear" of any further claim of appellant.

Teague v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (6-17-2004)

2004 Ohio 3212 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 2004

Cincinnati claims that the terms of the settlement agreement clearly explain that Cincinnati entered into the settlement agreement to facilitate an immediate appeal. … the classical sense of the word, meaning that the end or ends have been established."

In Re Midwest Eye Center

104 Ohio App. 3d 215 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 30, 1995

Midwest’s activities do not meet the primary elements of R.C. 3702.51(R), the statutory provision which establishes “reviewable activities” in Ohio. … Even assuming Midwest qualifies as an ambulatory surgical facility and, thus, a health care facility, Midwest’s surgical activities were not new, nor did they constitute a change.

State v. Schimmel

2017 Ohio 7747 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2017

Schimmel failed to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against incrimination, and he did not fall within any established exceptions to assertion of the privilege. … In Cunningham, the attorney was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury and refused to waive immunity.