Case law

Mocarski v. Akron, Unpublished Decision (7-14-1999)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

State Ex Rel. Brush Wellman. v. Moomey, 06ap-886 (6-28-2007)

2007 Ohio 3287 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2007

However, this Hearing Officer finds that the Industrial Commission finding of 01/06/2004 clearly indicates that beryllium disease does not qualify for a Change of Occupation award. … It is clearly implicit in the November 12, 2002 report that claimant's employment had exposed her to beryllium dust and that any future exposure is unacceptable.

Edwards v. Bolden

2012 Ohio 2501 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 2012

Accordingly, he has failed to show that the jury clearly lost its way in finding in Bolden’s favor. {¶37} Appellant’s fourth assignment of error is overruled.  III. … Also, prior convictions for crimes of dishonesty are allowed to be used to attack the credibility of a witness if they qualify under Evid.R. 609, which they did here.

Martin v. Lamrite West, Inc.

2017 Ohio 8170 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2017

Prior Notice  {¶10} R.C. 1345.09(B) provides that a consumer may qualify for class action status only when a supplier acted in the face of prior notice that its conduct was deceptive or unconscionable. … A consumer may qualify for class action certification under Ohio’s CSPA only if the defendant’s alleged violation of the CSPA is substantially similar to an act or practice previously declared to be deceptive by one of

Roos v. Morrison

2019 Ohio 1514 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2019

. {¶7} Additionally, aggravation of a preexisting condition (at issue in this case) qualifies as an “injury” under Ohio’s workers’ compensation system. R.C. 4123.01(C)(4). … “aggravation” and “exacerbation” aside, our review reveals that the determination of the trial court, that Officer Roos’s condition was aggravated by his workplace injury, was supported by the record, which was never clearly

State v. Powell

2019 Ohio 4345 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2019

“Plain error exists when it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise.” State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 56, 752 N.E.2d 904 (2001), citing State v. … As noted in Melendez-Diaz, “it is the obligation of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody for evidence sent to testing laboratories — that is, to establish ‘the identity and integrity of physical evidence by

State v. Jaffrin

74 Ohio Law. Abs. 577 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 1956

Can it be said, if the facts are established by proof beyond reasonable doubt as contended by the state, that the defendant attempted to sell to her benefit immunity from the judicial process, and as a result, the court was … What could be more inimical to the cause of justice than the private sale of immunity from law enforcement?

State v. Jackson

2023 Ohio 4368 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2023

Before Anderson would speak with the State, the State sought immunity for Anderson. The trial court granted Anderson immunity on December 1, 2022. … Anderson until last week because he was waiting for the Court to grant him immunity.

Stack v. Ohio State Dental Board

78 Ohio App. 3d 583 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 1992

The facts as established at the administrative hearing are as follows. Dr. Stack employed Judith Pearson and Rebecca Smith as dental assistants; neither Pearson nor Smith is a licensed dental hygienist. … In this context, the meaning of the term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more than an error of judgment; it implies a decision without a reasonable basis, one which is clearly wrong.” Angelkovski v.

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Martin

2014 Ohio 3874 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 2014

Bank’s May 15, 2013 supplemental affidavit served to establish that it had provided proper notice of acceleration to Martin. … Contrary to Martin’s argument, Littlejohn’s affidavit clearly indicates that she is an employee of Bank of America.

Hubbard v. Shaffer, 89870 (4-24-2008)

2008 Ohio 1940 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2008

immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744. … Chapter 2744 establishes a three-tiered analysis for determining whether a political subdivision is immune from tort liability. 8 First, R.C. 2744.02 (A) establishes the general rule that a political subdivision is immune

State v. Hayes

229 N.E.3d 234 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2023

Four of the counts were qualifying offenses under the Reagan Tokes Law, and Hayes was advised of that fact at the plea hearing. … The involuntary manslaughter count is a qualifying offense under the Reagan Tokes Law.

Travis v. Tall Tall Properties, L.L.C.

2023 Ohio 3370 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2023

If such a motion is filed, it “must be supported by an affidavit establishing the reasons for the requested continuance.” … (where defendants disclosed defects to the property as required by law and plaintiffs chose not to have an inspection where one was clearly warranted, plaintiffs could not claim justifiable reliance on the defendants’

Drew v. Laferty, Unpublished Decision (6-1-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1999

To qualify for immunity, the subdivision's function must require it to weigh multiple considerations, "not merely to 'rubber stamp' [a proposal] found to be in compliance with all requisite technical requirements." … The Village asserts on appeal that Laferty failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a Section 1983 claim.

Westfield Ins. Co. v. Chapel Elec. Co., L.L.C.

249 N.E.3d 266 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2024

Kastle also focuses on the fact that Westfield settled the wrongful death lawsuit before issues of employer immunity and co-employee immunity were determined and fault was apportioned. {¶ 48} As noted above, the … Id. at 392-393. {¶ 55} The crux of the immunity issue was whether Shredders was immune from liability as Garnett’s employer under the loaned servant doctrine.

State v. Armstrong

2016 Ohio 5263 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 2016

We cannot conclude that this document, standing alone, established the absence of the tested-for drugs in Armstrong’s system on May 15, 2015. … and convincingly unsupported by the record. {¶ 44} Finally, Armstrong contends that the trial court improperly elicited the prosecutor’s opinions on matters about which he “was clearly not qualified to opine”

Ruscilli v. Ruscilli

90 Ohio App. 3d 753 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 1993

The evidence established in the record before this court discloses the following facts. … In sum, though plaintiff has not established that his subsequent legitimization by his father qualified him under the “born in wedlock” language of the 1982 insurance trust, there are genuine issues of material fact which

Saliba v. Miley

2021 Ohio 3638 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2021

The affidavit here does not establish DeVolld is qualified as an expert. This is an area that would require specialized knowledge to know what caused the toxic gases in the cistern. … Moreover, a reasonable person probably would not believe there was constructive knowledge of the condition because the evidence clearly indicates Michael went into the cistern on October 4 twice without protective gear.

Molnar v. Klammer, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2005)

2005 Ohio 6905 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2005

Consequently, for all the above reasons, the second prong was met. {¶ 29} The third prong is that appellants were qualified for the position. Id. The evidence clearly establishes that they were. … Thus, for those reasons, we find that sovereign immunity is applicable.

State v. Gellenbeck, Ca2008-08-030 (4-13-2009)

2009 Ohio 1731 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2009

Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different. State v. Palmer , Warren App. No. CA2005-08-097, 2006-Ohio-2712 , ¶ 6. … In light of our prior decisions that an officer's visual estimation of speed is sufficient to support a speeding conviction, the outcome of the trial would not have clearly been different.