Case law

Evans v. Board of Liquor Control

112 Ohio App. 264 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1960

Appellee mentions this error but also contends this case is within the terms of a footnote in the case of Henry's Cafe, Inc., v. Board of Liquor Control, 170 Oh St 233. … Buffalo Grill & Hotel, v. Board of Liquor Control, 164 Oh St 275.

Chester Township Board of Trustees v. Kline

19 Ohio App. 2d 63 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1969

This statute does not provide for a trial de novo (Manning v. Straka, 117 Ohio App. 55 ; Fleischmann v. … And, specifically, we have so held in Williamson v. Twp. Trustees, 18 Ohio App. 2d 188 .

State v. Brown, 2006-Ca-53 (4-26-2007)

2007 Ohio 2005 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2007

Brown because [appellant] refused to "give [the officer] his arm." … City of Uhrichsville v. Losey , 5 th Dist. No. 2005 AP 03 0028, 2005-Ohio-6546 at ¶ 15 ; State v. Brown , 5 th Dist. No. 2004-CA-00010, 2004-Ohio-5226 at ¶ 41.

Beery v. Ohio Board of Chiropractic Examiners

66 Ohio App. 3d 206 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 1990

Charlton, v. Corrigan (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 68 , 521 N.E.2d 804 . In this case, the first clause of R.C. 124.-11(A)(9) is applicable since we are not dealing with county officials. … Yarosh v. Becane (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 5 , 17 O.O.3d 3 , 406 N.E.2d 1355 . As the board’s executive secretary/administrator, Beery performed in a fiduciary capacity for the board.

Hansen v. State Personnel Board of Review

51 Ohio App. 2d 7 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1977

Brittain, v. … Comm. (1951), 154 Ohio St. 497 ; Valley Greyhound Lines, Inc., v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1947), 148 Ohio St. 603 ; Toledo v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1939), 135 Ohio St. 57 ; State, ex rel. Thomas, v.

Wilson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

14 Ohio App. 3d 309 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1984

Fahl v. Bd. of Review (1965), 2 Ohio App. 2d 286 [ 31 O.O.2d 426 ], citing Brown-Brockmeyer v. Roach (1947), 148 Ohio St. 511 [ 36 O.O. 167 ]; Craig v. Bureau of Unemployment *311 Comp. … Brown-Brockmeyer Co. v. Bd. of Review (1942), 70 Ohio App. 370 [ 24 O.O. 229 ].

Pierstorff v. Board of Embalmers & Funeral Directors

68 Ohio App. 453 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1941

McAnally, v. Goodier, 195 Mo., 551 , 93 S. W., 928 ; Miller v. Johnson, 110 Kan., 135 , 202 P., 619 ; State, ex rel. Nowotny v. City of Milwaukee, 140 Wis., 38 , 121 N. W., 658 ; People v. McCoy, 125 Ill., 289 , 17 N. … E., 786 ; Seitz v. Medical Board, 24 Ohio App., 154 , 157 N. E., 304 ; Lehmann v. Board of Accountancy, 208 Ala., 185 , 94 So., 94 ; Spurgeon v, Rhodes, 167 Ind., 1 , 78 N.

Yates v. Mansfield Board of Education

150 Ohio App. 3d 241 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2002

The court consequently concludes that the Board is entitled to sovereign immunity because neither of the exceptions cited by the plaintiffs apply.” … . {¶ 58} Campbell v.

State v. Brown, 1-06-66 (4-16-2007)

2007 Ohio 1761 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2007

OPINION *Page 2 {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Matthew Lee Brown ("Brown") brings this appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County. {¶ 2} On June 1, 2006, Brown entered a guilty plea to one count of aggravated … State v. Scovil (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 505 , *Page 3 713 N.E.2d 452 . A trial court speaks only through its journal entries and not by oral pronouncement.

Currier v. Board of Liquor Control

77 Ohio Law. Abs. 425 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 1957

In the hearing before the Board, after Exhibit A had been introduced certain inquiries were made by members of the Board and answers thereto by Mr. … The observation of the member of the Board occurred after all the testimony was in. Whether or not the member of the Board correctly interpreted our ruling in Codic, Jr., v.

DiNardo v. Board of Liquor Control

80 Ohio Law. Abs. 253 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1958

In the case of Sheen v. … In the case of Domanski v. Woda, 132 Oh St 208, the Supreme Court held, among other things: “1. New trials on the ground of newly discovered evidence are not favored by the courts. “2.

Zackey v. Board of Liquor Control

65 Ohio Law. Abs. 136 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 1951

They may all be stated as, error in reversing the order of the Board of Liquor Control in holding that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the Board. … There was enough competent evidence in this record to have convinced the Board that this permittee was conducting his place of business in a manner that was obnoxious and, in probability, against the regulations of the Board

State Board of Pharmacy v. Gafford

8 Ohio Law. Abs. 122 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 1930

perforce, his misconduct has been with reference to his chosen profession, and that misconduct would show him either such a profession which, as already stated, incompetent or an unfit person to carry on We think that the Board … We think ing must have likewise controlled the Com-that the Board abused its discretion in refusing to grant this man, under the circumstances in this case, a renewal license, and we think that the Court of Common Pleas committed

Maurer v. Board of County Commissioners

16 Ohio Law. Abs. 504 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 1933

Haynay v. Board of Liquor Control

98 Ohio App. 419 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 1954

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court affirming an order of the Board of Liquor Control sustaining the department in denying the appellants a transfer of their D-l liquor permit from … The grounds for the rejection were based upon regulation No. 64 issued by the board and under which it was found the number of D-l permits was frozen at two, and that this number had previously been granted.

Tarpoff v. Board of Liquor Control

110 Ohio App. 290 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1960

A plea of guilty having been entered at the time of appearance before the Board of Liquor Control, was the Court of Common Pleas correct in sustaining the Board, since the severity of the penalty is the question raised by … In view of the decision in the case of Henry’s Cafe, Inc., v.

Arvay v. Board of Liquor Control

104 Ohio App. 208 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1957

This cause came on to be heard on motion of the appellee, the Board of Liquor Control, for an order to strike from the appellant’s notice of appeal so much of that portion of the notice which states that the appeal relates … The Supreme Court, in Andrews v. Board of Liquor Control, 164 Ohio St., 275 , 131 N.

Walthall v. Board of County Commissioners

18 Ohio Law. Abs. 360 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1934

Under the state of the record, we find the case to be on all fours with that of the Board of Commissioners of Franklin County v Darst, 96 Oh St, 163. … The second syllabus in 96 Oh St, supra, reads as follows: “Unless provided by statute, there can be no liability for negligence against the board in their quasi-corporate capacity.

Lester v. Board of Liquor Control

77 Ohio Law. Abs. 311 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 1957

This case began with a hearing before the Ohio Board of Liquor Control. … An appeal was taken to the Common Pleas Court, which found that the decision of the board was supported by the requisite amount of evidence and affirmed the board.

Schott v. Board of Liquor Control

79 Ohio Law. Abs. 266 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 1958

In the case of Katz v. … Andrews v. Board of Liquor Control, 164 Oh St 275.