Case law

State v. Oliver

2021 Ohio 1002 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2021

Under R.C. 2929.144(B)(1), the maximum prison term for a qualifying felony of the second degree shall be equal to the “minimum term imposed * * * plus fifty per cent of that term.” … Therefore not only was the sentence in this case presumptively valid, the trial court also indicated that it considered the appropriate statutes, which establishes that the prison terms are not clearly and convincingly

Lima Mem. Hosp. v. Almudallal

2016 Ohio 5177 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 2016

If confidential information was to be disclosed to a qualified person, then the qualified person would have to sign a non-disclosure agreement before the information would be disclosed to him or her. … Rita’s argument fails is that the affidavits fail to establish a specific showing of harm.

Redden v. Constitution Life Insurance

113 Ohio App. 202 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 1960

Plaintiff’s evidence conclusively established that he was not under the professional care and regular attendance of a legally qualified physician or surgeon for the period of time for which he was claiming benefits and entitled … The record clearly justifies that result.

Emery v. So-Soft of Ohio, Inc.

94 Ohio Law. Abs. 357 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 1964

Silberberg, supra, established a test to determine whether an interest purchased was a security or an interest in realty by stating in paragraph one of the syllabus: “1. … It is perhaps superfluous to add that tbe evidence before this court does not establish that plaintiffs paid any considerations for the alleged security.

Slobody v. Slobody, 2007-G-2777 (7-3-2008)

2008 Ohio 3395 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2008

f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; {¶ 49} "(g) The standard of living of the parties established … production capacity of either party that resulted from that party's marital responsibilities; {¶ 56} "(n) Any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and equitable." {¶ 57} In the case at bar, appellant clearly

State v. Stevens

204 N.E.3d 1270 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2022

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING IMMUNITY TO BRANDON REED PURSUANT TO R.C. 2945.44. IV. … When a defendant has established he was tried outside speedy-trial time limits, the burden shifts to the state to show the time limit was extended under R.C. 2945.72. Id. at ¶ 31.

State v. Kershaw

132 Ohio App. 3d 243 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1999

A possible, but now clearly disapproved, reason for the notation existed up to the date of the Howard decision. … We believe that because “form” is preceded by the “worst,” there can be more than one offense that qualifies as the “worst form.”

State v. Evans

2016 Ohio 7256 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 2016

“Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise.” State v. … Evans, under Maxwell, a death certificate is only admissible if a qualified medical professional testifies about the victim’s cause of death.

Cooper v. Cooper, 2007 Ca 76 (9-19-2008)

2008 Ohio 4731 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2008

However, Danny, produced no evidence, other than his own testimony, to clearly establish that the appreciation of the AIM Summit Account was from reinvestment of passive gains in the account. … Although Sharon did not object to this omission in the magistrate's decision, the award of benefits was clearly made.

The Carter-Jones Lumber Co. v. B a Build. Ser., 07ca000003 (1-4-2008)

2008 Ohio 21 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 2008

Therefore, the trial court's summary judgment decision is a final appealable order. {¶ 40} "For all of the aforementioned reasons, we hold that a trial court's decision granting summary judgment based on immunity for one … *Page 11 {¶ 41} To accept appellee's argument would give an imprimatur to forum shopping as clearly evidenced in this case.

Knecht v. Vandalia Medical Center, Inc.

14 Ohio App. 3d 129 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 29, 1984

In the second place, in telling her son about appellant’s venereal disease experience, she enjoyed a qualified privilege. Hahn v. Kotten (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 237 [ 72 O.O.2d 134 ]. … Clearly, Gillespie was not functioning within the scope of her employment, when, while at home during her noon lunch hour, she engaged in a conversation with her son in which she divulged confidential information which she

Ritz v. Brown

61 Ohio App. 3d 65 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 1989

However, we believe that the instant case presents a unique situation that does not constitute a tolling of R.C. 2125.-02(D) within the meaning of the established case law. … Clearly, there is nothing in Civ.R. 1 or Civ.R. 6(A) purporting to except operation of the Rules of Civil Procedure from actions brought pursuant to R.C. 2125.02.

Sterbling v. Sterbling

35 Ohio App. 3d 68 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1987

The entry further established a specific visitation schedule for Mark during weekends, holidays and summer vacations, and also provided for weekly telephone visitation with the child. … The entry was drafted and approved by the parties and their attorneys and the particular section in question clearly reflects the parties’ intent to protect their daughter’s health in all respects.

Hetzer-Young v. Precision Airmotive Corp.

184 Ohio App. 3d 516 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2009

A review of the logbook itself reflects that the dates of the entries are consistent with the work performed. {¶ 42} As to the fourth element, appellants presented a qualified witness to establish a proper foundation for … Further, Beegle, who is familiar with the engine logbook, is a “qualified witness” who can provide a sufficient foundation upon which to establish the trustworthiness of the subject entry. {¶ 47} Unison claims that because

State, Ex Rel. Pucel v. Green

101 Ohio App. 531 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 1956

A-2 is a nominating petition containing forty-six valid signatures of qualified electors. … A nominating petition containing 103 valid signatures as established by the uncontroverted evidence properly certified to and *607 filed with the Board oí Elections as provided by law entitles the relator as a matter of law

Bowman v. Goldsmith Bros.

63 Ohio Law. Abs. 428 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1952

In my opinion that case is clearly distinguished from this. … The stated rule and the operative facts clearly distinguish this case from Cooper v. Roose, supra.

Bolling v. N. Olmsted City Schools Bd. of Edn., 90669 (10-16-2008)

2008 Ohio 5347 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2008

may be asserted to establish nonliability: {¶ 27} "* * * {¶ 28} "(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 … Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the evidence does not establish that Vlasak acted with malicious purpose, bad faith, or wantonly.

Li-Conrad v. Curran

2016 Ohio 1496 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2016

Yet, appellant’s argument is clearly based upon the misconception that an “affirmative false representation” can form the grounds of a fraudulent nondisclosure claim. … He further noted that the Currans did not qualify for the guarantee because the company’s commission on the deal would not be high enough.

Johnson v. Hunter

103 Ohio App. 31 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1956

The trial court erred in qualifying and modifying the special instructions given before argument to the jury. 2. The trial court erred in giving special instructions to the jury before argument. 3. … Hunter, to yield the right of way to the plaintiff. ’ ’ Such special instruction as given is clearly erroneous for the reason it is not complete in defining the degree of care required of the defendant.

State v. Scott, 88084 (5-3-2007)

2007 Ohio 2111 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 3, 2007

Consequently, the forcible element of rape was properly established." … not demonstrate enough expertise to qualify as an expert.