Case law

Hayden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

2025 Ohio 2574 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2025

Ohio has partially waived its sovereign immunity from liability in R.C. 2743.02(A)(1), and as a result “ ‘the state may be held liable for the false imprisonment of its prisoners.’ ” Abercrombie v. … Indeed, the state was clearly required to confine Hayden in the fashion it did by R.C. 2929.41(B)(3). Compare Richards v. Eberlin, 2004- Ohio-2636, ¶ 10 (7th Dist.)

Biskind v. Harris

256 N.E.3d 797 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2024

First, contrary to Biskind’s characterizations of the cases, neither Kihm (decided in 1982) nor Hile (decided in 1989) establishes any kind of blanket “holding” that a person cannot be a responsible person if he or she was … entity responsible for the execution of the qualifying entity's fiscal responsibilities.

Columbus Mtge., Inc. v. Morton, 06ap-723 (6-19-2007)

2007 Ohio 3057 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2007

the consumer alleged that the lender had violated both RISA and TILA by failing to separately state the amounts of the "finance charge" and *Page 15 "service charge"; that it had violated TILA and the CSPA by failing to clearly … Moreover, it is undisputed that Shultz is qualified to render the opinions contained in his affidavit.

McCoy Canned Food Co. v. Cincinnati, Sandusky & Cleveland Railroad

11 Ohio Law. Abs. 48 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1931

The issues of fact in this case were clearly drawn. … That such determination would fix the eastern line of said right-of-way and establish plaintiff’s line.

State v. Thornton

51 Ohio App. 3d 97 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 1989

Williams (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 82, 85 , 9 O.O. 3d 81, 83, 377 N.E. 2d 1013, 1016 , and at paragraph one of the syllabus, embraced the plain view doctrine and held that: “Hence, in order to qualify under the plain view exception … Clearly, the cocaine pipe was not in plain view and the police officers were not entitled to seize the cocaine pipe and the remaining contraband.

Mocarski v. Akron, Unpublished Decision (7-14-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 1999

The City further claims that the exceptions to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02 (B) only apply to proprietary functions and not governmental functions, and that the activities in the instant case were clearly governmental … may be asserted to establish nonliability: * * * (3) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the action or failure to act by the employee involved that gave rise to the claim of liability was within the discretion

Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers' & Salesmen's Licensing Board v. Memphis Auto Sales

103 Ohio App. 347 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 8, 1957

Granting to any private corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive right, privilege or immunity.” … Clearly the action of such councilman in no manner represents a legislative act by council.

Taylor v. Microdot, Inc.

79 Ohio App. 3d 485 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1992

Appellee-Buckingham argued that it never represented appellant; thus, it was immune from liability arising from its performance as legal counsel for appellee-Microdot. … Appellant contended that the presence of malicious conduct on the part of appellee-Buckingham was clearly discernible through the conduct of Timothy Campbell.

Hite v. Brown

100 Ohio App. 3d 606 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1995

The alleged victims in this case qualify as third persons who could witness the acts for which a privilege is claimed. See State v. … Clearly, the *618 alleged abuse did not occur during the marriage. Joseph Hite’s claims for loss of consortium are barred as a matter of law. The third assignment of error is overruled.

Ulmer v. Ackerman

87 Ohio App. 3d 137 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 1993

Plaintiffs expert, Alexis Michael de Rosayro, M.D., having been qualified as an expert in the field of anesthesiology, testified on direct examination as follows: “Q. … When a qualified medical expert in the defendant’s specialty testifies as here, that the defendant’s departure from the accepted standard of care of that medical specialty caused the death of a patient, the establishment

Thayer v. W. Carrollton Bd. of Edn., Unpublished Decision (7-23-2004)

2004 Ohio 3921 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2004

Once immunity is established under R.C. 2744.02 (A)(1), the second tier of analysis is whether any of the five exceptions set forth in subsection (B) apply. … However, that section does not provide an alternative method of overcoming the general rule of immunity, but rather a means to possibly resurrect immunity if an exception has been established.

PNC Bank, N.A. v. Price

2016 Ohio 2887 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 4, 2016

The affiant in this case is clearly identified as a Loan Support Analyst of PNC Bank. … In order to effect a valid novation, all parties to the original contract must clearly and definitely intend the second agreement to be a novation and intend to completely disregard the original contract obligation.

State v. Metzger

2026 Ohio 404 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2026

Sixth Assignment of Error The trial court erred in qualifying Kelsie Pestello as an expert witness. … Pestello further testified that she had conducted hundreds of controlled substance analyses, and had previously been qualified to provide expert testimony about the same in court.

Wolford v. Sanchez, Unpublished Decision (12-30-2005)

2005 Ohio 6992 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2005

The record clearly shows that Wolford failed to respond to Appellees' motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds and failed to meet his burden of establishing an exception to the immunity awarded under R.C. 2744.02 . … As no exception to immunity has been established, this Court need not proceed to the third tier of the analysis.

State v. Knight

2016 Ohio 8505 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2016

Knight contends that Deputy Saurer should not have been permitted to testify because she was not qualified as an expert and had not submitted an expert report in compliance with Crim.R. 16(K). … An erroneous jury instruction does not constitute plain error unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise. State v.

Link v. FirstEnergy Corp.

2014 Ohio 5432 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2014

The evidence set forth above establishes that the county engineer consistently communicated its disapproval to the Defendants regarding the Pole’s placement. … In Avondet, we concluded that the interrogatory was clearly inconsistent with the general verdict, but concluded that the appellant had waived the inconsistency.

State v. Spivey

2014 Ohio 721 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2014

Smalldon, concluded in 2004 that Spivey would not qualify for a “mental retardation” diagnosis. Dr. … Spivey’s IQ estimates do not fall within the range that is usually associated with mental retardation, still certain of his responses speak clearly to his cognitive limitations, for example his

Furman v. State

10 Ohio App. 157 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1918

For the reason that the body that returned said indictment was not in fact a grand jury and was not selected, appointed or qualified in accordance with any law of ■■this state. The motion was overruled. . … Sanborn, J., in the opinion in this case, at page 341, says: “Every man is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established.

State v. Kidd, 2006-P-0087 (12-7-2007)

2007 Ohio 6562 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2007

. {¶ 119} Section 5 (A), Article IV , of the Ohio Constitution, authorizes the Supreme Court of Ohio to establish Rules of Superintendence. "`(* * *) These Rules of Superintendence are designed (1) to expedite the disposition … Clearly, the trial court's instruction imposed upon Mr. Kidd a greater burden of proof than the law requires. {¶ 134} In addition, I believe the trial court erred in failing to give Mr.

Stellar Satellite Systems, Inc. v. City of Warrensville Heights

76 Ohio App. 3d 706 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1991

. * * * ” The Ohio Supreme Court established the guidelines for granting motions for summary judgment when it held in Norris v. Ohio Std. … part, that: “State and local zoning or other regulations that differentiate between satellite receive-only antennas and other types of antenna facilities are preempted unless such regulations: “(a) Have a reasonable and clearly