Case law

Manning v. City of Avon Lake, 06ca008958 (3-10-2008)

2008 Ohio 1000 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2008

STAUTORY IMMUNITY {¶ 19} Mrs. Manning's third assignment of error is that the City is not immune from liability as a matter of statutory law. At the time of Mrs. … This Court, therefore, concludes that the City has failed to establish it is immune from liability under Section 2744.03 (A)(3) or Section 2744.03 (A)(5) as a matter of law. Mrs.

Trubiani v. Graziani, Unpublished Decision (12-29-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1999

the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Section 1983, Title 42, United States Code Plaintiff has also appealed the trial court's grant of qualified immunity in regard to his Section 1983 claims.

In re A.R.

2023 Ohio 394 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2023

“[U]nder the plain language of R.C. 3109.12, [appellant is] not qualified even to seek any court-ordered right to visit their putative biological grandchild, until the alleged paternity of the grandchild is established … grandchild is established under either of the methods set forth in the statute.

Drake-Lassie v. State Farm Insurance, Unpublished Decision (12-19-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2000

from liability based upon a statutory grant of immunity. … Thus, a panel of this appellate court clearly found that the trial court erred in failing to grant summary judgment for Minerva Drake-Lassie.

Leach v. Board of Review

3 Ohio App. 2d 314 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 1963

This language seems to clearly establish the authority of the board, or its referee, in cases such as the one before us, but the feeling of the Court of Common Pleas, set out in its decision, that the referee was in error … Clever, scheming employers could downgrade and downscale a work force with complete immunity.

State v. Hawk

2013 Ohio 5794 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2013

The state contends the evidence establishes that Brenda made the statement immediately after she ran inside the house. … Our review of the transcript does not lead us to conclude that the jury was clearly wrong to do so.

State Ex Rel. Wilkerson v. Trumbull Cty. Bd., 2007-T-0081 (9-13-2007)

2007 Ohio 4762 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 2007

. {¶ 2} David Wilkerson is presently both a resident and qualified voter of the First Ward of the City of Niles, Trumbull County, Ohio. … Such a circumstance would clearly foster political fragmentation and could create confusion when the electorate attempts to vote. {¶ 27} By challenging the merits of respondents' determination concerning their political status

State v. Bradley

2012 Ohio 5176 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 2012

Tichon, 102 Ohio App.3d 758, 767, 658 N.E.2d 16 (9th Dist.1995). {¶10} The Ohio Supreme Court established the proper analysis for determining whether offenses qualify as allied offenses subject to merger pursuant … Nos. 13-12-02,13-12-03, 13-12-04, 2012-Ohio-3901, ¶ 9. {¶12} Clearly, these are separate and distinct crimes because they were committed in different locations.

Mentor v. Jarvis

2023 Ohio 1538 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 8, 2023

Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12, 14-15 (2d Cir.1984) (defendant’s alleged status as “Vice President and Minister of Justice of the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika” did not entitle him to immunity from contempt … It is unclear how additional time would have helped appellant prepare to defend the charges, and appellant has not established how he was clearly prejudiced (especially because it appears, given the “motion” or documentation

City of Toledo v. Starks

25 Ohio App. 2d 162 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1971

“But it is not always possible in criminal cases to establish guilt by direct or positive evidence, nor is it necessary, and the law provides that circumstantial evidence alone, where it is sufficient to convince the mind … with intoxicated persons to be qualified to form and express an opinion and has had an opportunity to observe *168 the defendant.

In re Estate of Hersch

2014 Ohio 612 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2014

Indeed, counsel for Hadassah conceded at the January 28 hearing that he did not recall even seeing the agreement, despite his signature being clearly marked on the entry. … III. {¶20} Because Hadassah has not established that it is entitled to relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), we find no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to vacate and we affirm the judgment below.

In Re Markham

70 Ohio App. 3d 841 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 1990

When it became apparent that his relationship with Janalee Stock was over, Markham abandoned his Meigs County home and established residence in Florida. … The trial court’s award of the custody of Bob Branch and Marseille Markham to their father was an abuse of discretion and was clearly error. Janalee Stock’s first assignment of error is well taken and is sustained.

In Re Appropriation

115 Ohio App. 426 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1961

The bill of exceptions discloses that, in addition to Parker, who qualified as an expert as well as the owner of the property, two well-qualified real estate appraisers gave testimony as to the highest and best use of all … is liable to a landowner who has built a structure on the land before a grade has been established, and who suffers injury because thereafter an unreasonable grade has been established.

Pawlak v. Pawlak

2011 Ohio 5652 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2011

.: {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Patricia Pawlak (“Patricia”), appeals the court’s granting the motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”) filed by defendant-appellee, Joseph Pawlak (“Joseph” … The QDRO is clearly inconsistent on its face from the divorce decree in regard to the title given to Joseph’s pension plan.

Shields v. King

40 Ohio App. 2d 77 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 1973

King’s duties were to provide professional expertise needed in the establishment and operation of the hemodialysis unit. … We are in agreement with this interpretation and believe that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is clearly applicable to the medical profession where the conditions necessary to its application are present.

Hemphill v. City of Marysville, Unpublished Decision (3-21-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2000

The issue in this case is whether the proposed reservoir qualifies as a public utility. … This is clearly unreasonable and runs afoul of common sense.

Brown v. Burnett

144 N.E.3d 475 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2020

“Fraudulent conduct may not be established by conjecture; it must be proved by direct evidence or justifiable inferences from established facts.” Doyle v. … The key is reliability, and even if experts are highly qualified, “their experience, by itself, does not establish the legal reliability of their opinions as applied to the facts of [a] case.” Valentine v.

Eve v. Rutledge

73 Ohio App. 3d 366 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 1, 1991

Thus, we find that the transaction did not satisfy the criteria established by R.C. 1334.01(D)(1). The arrangement is therefore disqualified from consideration as the sale of a business opportunity plan. … The facts with respect to appellants’ allegation of fraud clearly fall within the holding of Keller v.

JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Stevens

2017 Ohio 7165 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2017

Thus, the magistrate concluded that the assignment of the note and mortgage attached to Chase’s complaint “clearly indicates that the mortgage is being assigned to Chase ‘together with the promissory note secured thereby … In so doing, the court determined that the proffered experts were not qualified as experts under Evid.R. 702-705.

State v. Brown

2024 Ohio 2372 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2024

but not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established … Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph 3 of the syllabus. {¶14} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court ‘considers the principles and purposes of R.