Case law

Ryan v. Ryan

84 Ohio App. 139 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1948

But even these propositions are qualified in the case of Dirion v. Brewer, Admr., 20 Ohio App., 298 , 151 N. … Briggs, 39 Ohio St., 478 , which was the law as understood in Ohio for many years, and still is the law except as it may have been qualified by the Redman case. supra, which in turn was qualified by the Markley case, supra

Sarnovsky v. Snyder, Evans & Anderson, Inc.

38 Ohio App. 3d 33 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1987

Pedersen, a dentist, was not qualified to testify against appellee, a physician, and further that Dr. … Expert testimony is not required for this, or, in the alternative, cross-examination of the defendant is sufficient to establish the required standard of care.”

Rogan v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (10-23-2006)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

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.

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.

City of Columbus v. Liebhart

86 Ohio App. 3d 469 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 1993

The harder he tries to speak clearly, the worse his problem gets. *475 The city presented several witnesses in an effort to establish that Liebhart’s stuttering rendered him unqualified. … (Colo.1989), 772 P.2d 70 (employer has burden to establish whether medical qualifying factors for entry level fire fighters were reasonably related to ability to do the job).

State v. Whiteside

6 Ohio App. 3d 30 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 1982

In the opinion, the court clearly states the parameters and objective of the court’s investigation and judgment. … Therefore the duty imposed upon the juvenile court by the statute is clearly established.

Long v. KeltanBW, Inc.

246 N.E.3d 635 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2024

A record of impairment is established when the employee has a history of long-term or permanent disability, which would qualify her as disabled under R.C. 4112.02. Yamamoto v. … The record clearly demonstrates that Long was fired for poor attendance and excessive tardiness.

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.

Slane v. Metamateria Partners, L.L.C.

176 Ohio App. 3d 459 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 20, 2008

In order to establish a prima facie case for his disability-discrimination claim, Slane had the burden to demonstrate that (1) he is disabled, (2) he is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation … Moreover, because Slane cannot establish a prima facie case of disability discrimi *467 nation, his wrongful-discharge claim fails as well. Thaman v. OhioHealth Corp.

Babbitt v. Shade

28 Ohio Law. Abs. 33 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 10, 1938

conducted by the' State Civil Service Commission; that certain of the defendants are the qualified members of the Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County and the others, the members of the State Civil Service Commission … On further consideration, we feel that more harm might grow out of our endorsement of what appears to us to be clearly an untenable position than would be justified by the saving to the plaintiff of time and expense.

Dayton v. State

2015 Ohio 3160 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2015

R.C. 4511.21(I) limits the ability of municipalities to establish their own speed limits. … No. 342 was clearly not enacted to limit municipal legislative powers.

State Ex Rel. Rogers v. Philip Morris, Inc., 06ap-1012 (7-24-2008)

2008 Ohio 3690 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 2008

but, instead, would only permit the PMs to withhold the amount of the NPM adjustment from each of the Settling States in accordance with the calculations already made by the Independent Auditor until such time as it is established … Rather, as stated above, other language in the arbitration clause, as well as other language in the MSA, clearly indicates the issue as to whether a specific Settling State diligently enforced its Qualifying Statute be determined

State v. Thomas

111 Ohio App. 3d 510 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 7, 1996

Clearly, the prosecutor’s actions on an appeal cannot, in any manner, affect the duty of the trial court to impose sentence according to law. … United States (1947), 330 U.S. 160, 166 , 67 S.Ct. 645, 648-649 , 91 L.Ed. 818, 822 , the court stated: “A prisoner, whose guilt is established by a regular verdict, [cannot] escape punishment altogether because the court

State v. Brown

2021 Ohio 753 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2021

.” {¶ 11} Appellant submitted: to qualify as the basis for probable cause, the State will have to establish that: 1) the office[r] had expertise and proven ability to accurately … Appellant acknowledges that the smell of marijuana by a person qualified to recognize the odor is sufficient to establish probable cause to search, but he contends the trooper’s search of the cab of the truck was beyond

Doe v. University of Cincinnati

42 Ohio App. 3d 227 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1988

Clearly, under this standard the rights affected in the present case are substantial. … The court found that previous cases “clearly establish that the federal right to privacy extends protection in some circumstances against disclosure of personal matters.” Id. at 536.

State v. Cousin

5 Ohio App. 3d 32 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 1982

The coroner, as a physician, is not qualified to make legal determinations. … The evidence clearly established the existence of a state of emotional tension between appellant and the victim minutes prior to the incident.

State v. Tate

2013 Ohio 570 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2013

In-court idenfication of the defendant by a victim or witness may be the most common method of establishing such identity, but it is not mandatory. … admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. {¶20} Culver’s testimony plainly did not qualify

Abbot v. Jarrett Reclamation Serv. Inc.

132 Ohio App. 3d 730 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 1999

The evidence clearly establishes that despite the fact that Jarrett had knowledge of and received the safety procedures which pertained to the job in question, Jarrett did not request that such safety equipment be present … While Abbott's experts testified that the Jarrett crew was not qualified to excavate the deeper trenches and that Rick Jarrett was not qualified to be *Page 747 a safety supervisor on the deeper trenches, these opinions are

Breeding v. Board of Trustees, Unpublished Decision (11-16-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2001

Fitzgerald (1982), 457 U.S. 800 , the United States Supreme Court defined the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Pursuant to Harlow, a person is immune from liability if he or she acts in such a way that the action does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge. Id. at 818 .