Case law

Csejpes v. Cleveland Catholic Diocese

109 Ohio App. 3d 533 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 1996

Clearly, the statute does not limit claims of discrimination to wrongful discharge. We therefore reject defendants’ argument that a nonrenewal fails to qualify as a civil rights violation as a matter of law. … It is well established that a prima facie case may be overcome by establishing a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the action. Jones v. BancOhio Natl. Bank, supra; Wang v.

Young, Admx. v. N.Y. Central Rd. Co.

64 Ohio App. 362 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 24, 1939

E., 753 , that there is “av wide distinction * * * between pure statutes of limitation and special*statutory limitations qualifying a given right. … In our opinion this rule of the statute should be followed and applied in the interpretation and construction of all statutes, save those where the language of the provision as to time, itself clearly forbids it.”

Johndahl v. Columbus Trotting Ass'n

104 Ohio App. 118 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 2, 1956

Defendant's first and second causes of action do not qualify as either counterclaim or setoff, and they do not qualify under the provisions of Section 2309.16 , Revised Code. … Since the grounds for the vacation of the judgment were not established, in my opinion, the judgment should not have been vacated.

Mentor v. Becka

1 Ohio App. Unrep. 430 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 1990

"THE WITNESS: (Sic) No, see the thing is, is that the reliability of radar has been established by the State of Ohio. "MR. BECKA: But not moving radar. … (Emphasis added.) tt* * *H The trial court's interpretation of the applicable law in moving radar cases is clearly erroneous.

State v. Sutton

2022 Ohio 2452 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2022

Statements qualify as testimonial if they have a “primary purpose” of “establish[ing] or prov[ing] past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” Davis v. … Sutton failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Brinkman v. Doughty

140 Ohio App. 3d 494 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2000

Under established standards, “summary judgment is appropriate when (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds can come to but … As was noted, the court observed that the remaindermen clearly had a vested interest. Id. at 177 , 541 N.E.2d at 618 .

Kormanik v. Cooper

195 Ohio App. 3d 790 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2011

The probate court also may consider whether establishment of a pooled-trust account would improve Baxter’s chances of qualifying for Medicaid. … New York (S.D.N.Y.1988), No. 84 Civ. 6801, 1988 WL 96063 (finding misjoinder where “ ‘there is clearly no right or basis of relief from a party’ ”); Moubry v.

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

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. Howard

2024 Ohio 2490 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2024

Appellant testified that he kept saying to Strange, “Yo, we need to go,” and “Clearly, we’re not wanted here.” … B.W. testified that J.B. was standing in between the pillars next to their apartment door when she heard the gunfire begin. {¶ 12} Testimony established that J.B. ultimately retreated inside his apartment and collapsed

Cornell v. Parsons Coal Co.

96 Ohio App. 3d 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 1993

The first assignment of error complains that the appellees should not have been permitted to raise, by motion for summary judgment, their immunity from the claim being pursued by the plaintiff-appellant. … The testimony clearly established that the plaintiff-appellant had never filed any request for compensation under the act. We agree with the factual finding by the trial judge.

State v. Lewis

2021 Ohio 1692 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 17, 2021

(ii) If the offense is a qualifying assault offense, the offender caused serious physical harm to another person while committing the offense, and, if the offense is not a qualifying assault … It is well established that the rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings. See State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 425 (1998) (superseded by statute on other grounds).

180 Degree Solutions, L.L.C. v. Metron Nutraceuticals, L.L.C.

2021 Ohio 2769 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2021

Metron produced no testimony or expert report to establish an amount of lost profits. … We can identify no error clearly apparent on the face of the record.

State ex rel. Howard v. State Emp. Relations Bd.

2016 Ohio 4765 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2016

The Office clearly worked with the FOP to establish this MOU. … Downing was promoted consistent with the clearly established agreement, and is therefore entitled to the vacancy is [sic] question. {¶ 21} 13.

Siler v. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation

66 Ohio Law. Abs. 523 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1951

In order to so qualify the claimant must prove reasonable effort to find suitable employment in addition to such registration and reporting.” … Clearly, the decision was not unlawful, and we do not think it was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence.

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. Reardon

168 Ohio App. 3d 386 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2006

There the question was whether a 9-1-1 call identifying the perpetrator qualified as a “testimonial” police “interrogation” subject to Crawford . The court held that it did not. … Id., — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. at 2274 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 . {¶ 15} The court also established three factors to consider in determining whether a statement fits this definition.

State v. Worden

2022 Ohio 4648 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2022

(ii) If the offense is a qualifying assault offense, the offender caused serious physical harm to another person while committing the offense, and, if the offense is not a qualifying assault offense, the offender … Subsections (B) and (C) establish the factors indicating whether the offender’s conduct is more serious or less serious than conduct normally constituting the offense.

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

Starr v. Starr

2025 Ohio 5788 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2025

The QDRO shall comply with the requirements of the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 to establish a qualified domestic relations order, and both parties agree they will make any modifications necessary … to qualify the order.