Case law

State v. Clinkscale

229 N.E.3d 201 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2023

A person may be an eligible offender and also may be an eighty per cent-qualifying offender or, during a declared state of emergency, a state of emergency-qualifying offender … But Moore itself throws some cold water on a broad understanding of that rejection—the opinion establishes that those definitional provisions of R.C. 2929.01 are “best understood as a simple acknowledgement that R.C. 2967.191

State v. Steible

2023 Ohio 281 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2023

As long as it can be shown that the rape victim’s will was overcome by fear or duress, the forcible element of rape can be established.’” State v. Dye, 82 Ohio St.3d 323, 327 (1998), quoting Eskridge at 58-59. … This argument, however, clearly sounds in sufficiency rather than weight. See State v. Vincente-Colon, 9th Dist.

Hudson v. Arias

106 Ohio App. 3d 724 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 1995

Arias’s testimony which established a patient-gynecologist relationship. … Cohen is carefully examined, it clearly appears that he did not even attempt to profess expertise involving the orthopedic question of when an ankle and leg cast, placed to immobilize the area to accomplish the knitting of

State v. McNichols

154 N.E.3d 125 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2020

Hrinko’s report indicates that appellant is not mentally ill and does not qualify for hospitalization. … He’s clearly mentally ill.”

State ex rel. McCray v. Burk

24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 493 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1914

Davis, but this appointee failed, to qualify until February 5, 1914, on which date he executed a bond in accordance with statute. … Rep. 582], in which that eminent jurist uses this language: “It is an equally well established rule; that the provisions of a statute are to be construed in connection with all laws in pari materia, and especially with reference

State v. Wenner

2019 Ohio 1684 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 3, 2019

. {¶ 9} Upon weighing the evidence presented for consideration in crafting a sentence, the trial court conveyed in relevant part, “I think your conduct clearly warrants prison; however, they don’t want to accept … misdemeanor offense of violence in the past two years. {¶ 16} The record reflects that all of these circumstances apply to the instant case. {¶ 17} In conjunction with the above, R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(i)-(xi) establishes

State, Em Rel. Donofrio v. Henderson

4 Ohio App. 2d 183 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1965

The petition was intended to establish him as a candidate for the office ©f Judge of the Municipal Court of the city of Youngstown, Ohio, for the full term commencing January 2, 1966. … In this case, clarification and reformation of the election laws are clearly needed.

Givens v. Loeffler

2023 Ohio 3987 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 2023

Appellee further asserted Appellee’s acts were not the proper subject of a CSPO, based on Ohio’s sovereign immunity law as applied in Hunt v. Morrow Cnty., Ohio, 5th Dist. … ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5 TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNFOUNDED/HEARSAY STATEMENTS THAT CLEARLY DEFY COMMON SENSE, TRUTH, AND

Carter v. Licking County Board of Comm., Unpublished Decision (11-4-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 1999

Appellees argued because they are political subdivisions, they qualify for sovereign immunity under R.C. 2744.02 (A)(1) which states as follows: For the purposes of this chapter, the functions of political subdivisions are … Given the facts established by the affidavits of Mr. Williams and Mr. Preston, we find the trial court did not err in finding sovereign immunity applied sub judice.

State v. Noling, 2007-P-0034 (5-16-2008)

2008 Ohio 2394 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 16, 2008

Because the substantive evidence of Wolcott's memory problems along with his immunity order were presented to the jury and because Dr. … *Page 26 {¶ 74} Next, appellant asserts the police documentation, crime scene report, and LeFever interview should have been used to establish an alternative suspect.

Columbus Auction House, Inc. v. State

69 Ohio App. 2d 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1980

The trial court erred in failing to hold said statutes and rules unconstitutional as violative of the privileges and immunities clause, Plaintiff-Appellants’ rights to due process, equal protection of the laws and freedom … The evidence arguably establishes a real and substantial relationship between the governmental purpose of promoting the public health, safety and welfare by regulating the spread of bedbugs and other vermin, and the means

Leeds v. Westman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.

2021 Ohio 4123 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 2021

Allowing [her] to introduce this new evidence is clearly prejudicial.” The trial court also granted Weltman’s motion for summary judgment and denied Leeds’s motion. … The rationale for this burden is that “an employer’s decision to discharge a qualified, older employee should not be considered ‘inherently suspicious’ because ‘in a RIF, qualified employees are going to be discharged.”

State v. Baldwin, 2006ca00076 (7-9-2007)

2007 Ohio 3511 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 2007

Appellant must establish the following: {¶ 10} "2. … Novak, while a police officer in Massachusetts, was granted immunity and given a new name by the FBI in exchange for his testimony against his Chief of Police, an accomplice in a 1986 bank robbery. T. at 6.

Penwell v. Taft Broadcasting Co.

13 Ohio App. 3d 382 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1984

The videotape footage was an accurate portrayal of the events of the evening as they related to the appellant’s arrest and removal from the H & H Bar and we must conclude that the record before the trial court clearly established … R. 802, and fails to qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule as provided in Evid. R. 803. As such, the statement could not be considered by the trial court in ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Civ.

State v. Six

2023 Ohio 4361 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2023

To qualify for plain-error relief, the appellant must establish: (1) occurrence of an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule; (2) the error was plain, i.e., it was an obvious 3 Tellingly, Six fails to identify any … In short, to qualify for plain-error relief, the appellant must establish: (1) occurrence of an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule; (2) the error was plain, i.e., it was an obvious defect in the trial proceedings

State v. Towns

35 Ohio App. 2d 237 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 1973

The defendant next argues that the charge given by the court does not clearly show the need for finding knowledge on the defendant’s part. The defendant quotes the first sentence of the second paragraph to show this. … The ‘Polygraph Test or Tests’ to be administered by a person or persons duly qualified to administer such test(s) and acknowledged by all parties to this agree *244 ment to be qualified to administer this test or these tests

State Trade Corp. v. Tobias Studio

64 Ohio App. 516 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1940

If defendant’s theory be correct, and these facts are susceptible of proof, they, of course, would establish a conclusive defense to plaintiff’s claim. … The trade acceptance so stipulates, unless the “exception” previously quoted qualifies the promise. That portion thereof, before the comma, clearly refers only to the origin of the obligation.

State v. Fread

2013 Ohio 5206 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2013

It is well- established that treating physicians can be called at trial to testify as fact witnesses and not as experts retained in anticipation of litigation. E.g., Henry v. … record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of the witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly

Blatnik v. Avery Dennison Corp.

148 Ohio App. 3d 494 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2002

Despite this determination, appellants invoked the defense of qualified privilege. … Therefore, under these particular circumstances, the determination of the existence of qualified privilege was a question of law for the trial court. 11 {¶ 60} To defeat the qualified privilege, appellees had to show, by

State ex rel. District Eight Regional Organizing Committee v. Cincinnati-Hamilton County Community Action Agency

192 Ohio App. 3d 553 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 2011

Through one of its programs, the Home Weatherization Assistance Program (“HWAP”), it provides home-weatherproofing and energy-efficiency services to qualifying individuals. … There is no indication that CAA was established to allow the government “to avoid the requirements of the Public Records Act.”