Case law

State v. Walden

54 Ohio App. 3d 160 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 1988

Clearly, the defendants had ninety days to pay $1,500. … A defendant’s poverty in no way immunizes him from punishment.

State v. McQuin

2026 Ohio 894 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2026

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 … (b) The court has discretion to impose a prison term upon an offender who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony of the fourth or fifth degree that is not an offense of violence or that is a qualifying assault

Pond v. Carey Corp.

34 Ohio App. 3d 109 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1986

Such a decision is clearly erroneous. If a dismissal is warranted for failure to *111 state a cause of action, the issue is then one of law and not fact, and Civ. R. 12(B)(6) is applicable. … The facts of Kemock again run parallel to the case sub judice in the sense that the patron in that case was intoxicated upon leaving the establishment and killed himself when his automobile struck a tree.

Thompson v. Marion

27 Ohio Law. Abs. 341 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1937

“Repealing ordinance No. 2411, establishing a police pension fund. … The sections of the General Code mentioned clearly come within the above holding, and are therefore valid and constitutional notwithstanding the failure of the General Assembly to establish standards for the guidance of the

State v. West

2022 Ohio 2060 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 2022

We disagree. {¶ 37} Despite West’s claims, the record clearly establishes that the trial court’s summary judgment ruling was not premature. … As previously discussed, the State’s exhibits clearly and convincingly established that West habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds had engaged in vexatious conduct.

House v. Kirtland Capital Partners

158 Ohio App. 3d 68 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 2004

To state a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA, a party must establish that “(1) he is an individual with a disability; (2) he is ‘otherwise qualified’ to perform the job requirements, with or without reasonable … Clearly, lifting is a manual task that is often an unavoidable necessity of daily life.

In re Brothers Publishing Co., L.L.C.

2015 Ohio 454 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2015

It indicates clearly to the jury [or other fact finder] that the party having the burden of proof will be entitled to their verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find the greater amount of credible … evidence sustains the issue which is to be established before them.

State v. Novotny

2013 Ohio 2321 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2013

“‘Privilege’ means an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or implied grant, arising out of status, position, office, or relationship, or growing out of necessity.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(12). … that the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different but for the alleged error.”

Campbell v. Pritchard

73 Ohio App. 3d 158 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 1991

To the contrary, because counsel may inadvertently overlook some important facts that the plaintiff will have the burden of establishing, “ ‘he should be given a full and fair opportunity to explain and qualify his statement … and make such additions thereto as, in his opinion, the proofs at his command will establish.’ ” Crowe v.

American Cancer Society, Inc. v. City of Dayton

94 Ohio App. 131 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1952

Clearly, this legislation lies in the field of the police power, and is not a proprietary function. 8 Ohio Jurisprudence, 333, Section 229. … It is well established that every reasonable presumption must be indulged in favor of its constitutionality. The presumption of constitutionality continues until the invalidity of the ordinance clearly appears.

Jacobs v. Budak

156 Ohio App. 3d 160 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2004

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects expressions of opinion and generally grants opinions absolute immunity from a defamation claim. Scott v. … Furthermore, the union newsletter publication does not qualify as privileged material.

State v. McGinnis

2019 Ohio 3803 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2019

2929.11 1 Clear and convincing evidence is a “degree of proof [greater] than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence’ ” that produces in the mind of the trier of fact “a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established … “A course of conduct may be established by  -15- factual links such as time, location, weapon, cause of death, or similar motivation

Renforth v. Staff Right Personnel Serv., L.L.C.

2021 Ohio 2335 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2021

The main evidence presented and relied upon by Appellant to establish a claim for intentional tort is that Derrick Hart, a representative of Staff Right, informed CBS just days before the incident that minors were not … As earlier discussed, even though Appellant was a minor at the time of this incident, unless the facts clearly indicate a specific intent to cause harm, an intent that rises above negligence or even recklessness, an injured

Humphrys v. Winous Co.

72 Ohio Law. Abs. 65 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1955

Such right to vote cumulatively shall not be restricted or qualified by any provisions in the articles or regulations.” … The legislature in adopting the revision of the statute dealing with corporate organizaton in 1927, showed clearly that it intended to strengthen the cumulative voting provision by adding to existing law the provision that

State v. Carradine

2015 Ohio 3670 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2015

“Privilege is ‘an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or implied grant, arising out of status, position, office, or relationship, or growing out of necessity.’” … Clearly, he saw two men running from the store and he stated that the second male (Carradine) was trying to catch up to the first male.

Gaines v. Village of Wyoming

77 Ohio App. 373 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1946

In Taylor v City of Cincinnati, 143 Oh St 426, the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between absolute and qualified nuisance. … The authorities noted clearly show that such failure to enforce the law, no matter how reprehensible, would not create liability in the Village.

State v. Daylong

181 N.E.3d 1245 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2021

s home in order to establish attempted burglary and attempted trespass in a habitation. … s testimony establishes a "behavioral fingerprint" that is clearly present in the case for which Daylong was on trial; and (3) A.B.'

State v. Kehoe

133 Ohio App. 3d 591 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 17, 1999

Appellant also asserts that Johnson was not qualified to testify as to the contents of the videotape. … This evidence established that appellant fired his weapon without provocation by the officers.

Campbell v. Johnson

87 Ohio App. 3d 543 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 5, 1993

Therefore, unless this intent can be clearly established by (1) the deed taken as a whole, or (2) the circumstances of the case, we must apply the general rule and construe the conveyance against the grantor. … Furthermore, in answering Campbell’s questions, the surveyor quite clearly stated that he was not qualified to, and could not, determine the ultimate issue in this case, ie., the actual legal status of the driveway.

Johnston v. State

2014 Ohio 1452 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2014

However, the application of the phrase "prior to, or on or after" is clearly limited to R.C. 2743.48(A)(1). … A mere suggestion of retroactivity is not sufficient to establish that a statute applies retroactively.