Case law

Breeding v. Board of Trustees, Unpublished Decision (11-16-2001)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

Brackett v. Moler Raceway Park, L.L.C.

2013 Ohio 1102 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2013

Rather, Bracket I clearly states: We find that the trial court's decision failed to make a determination as to whether or not proof, to the degree required, established that a nuisance … Although the Residents clearly find their expert to be more qualified in the field of noise testing, the trial court was in the best position to observe the witnesses and ultimately make credibility determinations.

State v. Raley

100 Ohio App. 75 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1954

The established government refused to take any action to call a constitutional convention. … The fact that the immunity would be no shield from prosecution by other sovereignties, such as another state or the United States, is the basis for no valid objection to the operation of the immunity within the sovereignty

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

SER R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Indus. Comm.

2022 Ohio 4774 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2022

A relator seeking a writ of mandamus must establish: " '(1) a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) a clear legal duty upon respondent to perform the act requested, and (3) that relator has no plain and adequate … Furthermore, questions of credibility and the weight to be given evidence are clearly within the discretion of the commission as fact finder. State ex rel. Teece v. Indus.

State v. Craig

2019 Ohio 1092 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2019

Although Appellant states that he received five years of postrelease control, the record clearly indicates that the trial court imposed a three-year postrelease control period. … We have acknowledged that “[i]t is well established that sentencing courts may consider arrests and even prior allegations that did not result in conviction before imposing sentence.” State v. Martin, 7th Dist.

State, Ex Rel. Fowler v. Board of Elections

45 Ohio App. 34 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1932

The right of relator to the remedy sought is governed by §4785-162, GC, which reads as follows: “Any candidate voted for at a primary or other election, or any group of five or more qualified electors voting at such election … The statute seems clearly to provide that the required bond shall be in a sum equal to $10.00 for each precinct in which a recount is desired by the applicant, the words “but in no case less than $5.00 and not to exceed $10.00

State v. Mundt

2026 Ohio 382 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2026

with no qualifying condition. … We further find the SMI trial court abused its discretion when it relied to the exclusion of all other evidence on Appellant’s malingering, as the preponderance of the evidence establishes Appellant suffers from a qualifying

Hillman v. Service Packing Co.

67 Ohio App. 254 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1940

Cohen 80 per cent, less one qualifying share to a director. *257 On the day before the collision involved here, Mr. Cohen drove from Fostoria to Cleveland in response to a call from his wife that their child was ill. … Plaintiff contends in his brief that an inference did so arise and, moreover, that “the agency of Cohen is clearly established from the simple facts that The Service Company was the owner of the automobile and George H.

Swayne v. Beebles Investments, Inc.

176 Ohio App. 3d 293 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2008

The interest rate alone clearly favors the lender. {¶ 17} Of the $20,000 face amount of the note, Swayne received $13,734.60. … As the time approached for the balloon payment to be made, Swayne clearly had no ability to pay $25,612.11.

Hubner v. Sigall

47 Ohio App. 3d 15 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1988

R. 411 and 408 prohibit the introduction of evidence regarding liability insurance or settlement attempts for the purpose of establishing liability, such evidence is clearly admissible to prove bias or prejudice. Evid. … Clearly, once plaintiffs executed the settlement, these defendants were immune from further suit by plaintiffs or from contribution sought by any other joint tortfeasor. R.C. 2307.32(F).

Bresler v. Rock

117 N.E.3d 184 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2018

The plaintiff further argued that he "established a prima facie case of retaliation because he was qualified for the Quality Manager job, he was entitled to it unconditionally, and Fleetguard's refusal to make him an unconditional … Gencorp, Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1469 (6th Cir.1990) ("This Circuit has clearly established that an employer has no duty under ADEA to permit an employee to transfer to another position

Kalb v. Morehead

100 Ohio App. 3d 696 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 1995

Obviously, some of this appears to be discoverable, and some clearly is not. … As of September 1, 1990, what established procedures did Defendant, U.S.

State v. Coxwell

2012 Ohio 6215 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2012

Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (1978), the Supreme Court of Ohio established the test for determining whether a motion for acquittal is properly denied. … For the reasons stated in our discussion regarding the motion for acquittal, we cannot say the jury clearly lost its way in finding appellant guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse

Merritt v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

2021 Ohio 4540 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2021

It also advised Glenn to establish a Qualified Income Trust ("QIT") on Jerome's behalf should Jerome's income level be too high to qualify him to receive benefits. … This amendment clearly supports our analysis of how the code instructs an agency to determine eligibility.

State, Ex Rel. Schwartz v. Leonard

65 Ohio App. 251 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 1940

There is no claim of fraud or corruption in this case. *253 The only possible basis for judicial intervention is that the board flagrantly misinterpreted the statute, or clearly disregarded an applicable legal provision. … We, therefore, hold that the relators have failed to establish a case for judicial intervention and that their petitions should be dismissed.

Griffis v. Klein, 22285 (5-9-2008)

2008 Ohio 2239 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 9, 2008

It then continued on as follows: {¶ 12} "`We strongly recommend that you do not vote for those people who clearly showed disregard for the club by their actions. … III {¶ 28} Ninotti's second assignment of error states: *Page 7 {¶ 29} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY MAKING DECISIONS IN OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE OF LAW ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLATE COURT" {¶ 30} In

Toman v. Pennsylvania Railroad

39 Ohio Law. Abs. 32 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1943

This conclusion is clearly in accord with the facts-developed because all of the experts who testified said that the disease could not have been contracted bv reason of the condition of the stock cars in which the hogs were … It is established that ‘the cars in which the hogs were loaded at Winnfield, La., were not disinfected.

Moore v. Rubin, Unpublished Decision (9-17-2004)

2004 Ohio 5013 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2004

Rubin nor WRCS were protected by the Health Care Qualified Immunity Act ("HCQIA") for their actions which prompted the within lawsuit. Dr. … Code. {¶ 24} In order for the defendants' professional review actions to qualify for immunity, however, these actions must satisfy four requirements.

State v. Hacker

161 N.E.3d 112 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2020

Under the Reagan Tokes “[L]aw, qualifying first- and second-degree felonies committed on or after March 22, 2019 are now subject to the imposition of indefinite sentences.” State v. Barnes, 2d Dist. … Id. {¶10} Moreover, the Reagan Tokes Law establishes a presumptive-release date at the end of the offender’s minimum prison term imposed. R.C. 2967.271(B).