Case law

State v. Stafford

11 Ohio Law. Abs. 411 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 1931

Stafford [then, upon qualifying, in the most favorable view, of his status, was but a de facto member of the Board. He was not legally elected. … Shank could have no material effect on that which was actually done by the Board, which is clearly established in the record and not denied.

State v. Dewalt, 06 Ca 835 (9-25-2007)

2007 Ohio 5245 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2007

. {¶ 4} Appellant's second assignment of error alleges: {¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN QUALIFYING THE TROOPER AS AN EXPERT ON ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION." {¶ 6} Appellant argues that the trial court erred in qualifying Trooper … The *Page 14 expert opinion given by Trooper Armstrong clearly required special knowledge beyond that of basic accident investigation skills.

State v. Farrell

172 N.E.3d 488 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2021

determine and approve “satisfactory techniques or methods” for analyzing the amount of alcohol in a person’s breath, set the qualifications for those who may conduct breath-alcohol analyses, and issue permits to those who qualify … Institute Traceable Standards” rather than NIST standards no more than a “clearly de minimis” error or a “‘minor procedural deviation[].’”

Miller v. Delaney, Unpublished Decision (2-8-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2002

Public officers performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … have been aware; qualified immunity is thus afforded to government officials who meet this objective test.

Cargotec, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Insurance

155 Ohio App. 3d 653 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2003

The “exclusion of reliable and probative evidence is a severe sanction and should be invoked only when clearly necessary to enforce willful noncompliance or to prevent unfair surprise.” Nickey v. … It is unclear whether all the persons listed qualify as “clients.”

Gallagher v. Harrison

86 Ohio App. 73 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 23, 1949

of this state'and by the courts of other states, that the members of a fraternal association by adopting a constitution and by-laws and providing reasonable rules and regulations for settling their own disputes, and by establishing … This allegation cannot be sustained under the constitution here involved, which is dual in character and clearly gives separate entity to the Brotherhood from the local lodges.

Sergi v. State

17 Ohio Law. Abs. 190 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1934

It is not believed that this testimony was competent, for the reason that the parties, do not qualify sufficiently as expert witnesses with reference to gasoline fires. … Any jury of ordinary intelligence would not understand that they were finding these parties guilty of two crimes, because it is clearly disclosed that through the trial it was observed that they were being tried for arson

Diller v. Diller

182 N.E.3d 370 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2021

kinds of testamentary gifts capable of qualifying as “devises.” … Given the extensive parallels between R.C. 2107.52 and the provisions of UPC Section 2-603, the General Assembly was clearly familiar with UPC Section 2-603.

Pelc v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (2-20-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2003

The fact that an endorsement to the Business Auto Coverage Form modifies the definition of "Named Insured" does not change our analysis as Pelc clearly qualifies as an "insured" under Hartford's commercial automobile policy … Since Pelc qualifies as an "insured" under the definition contained in the commercial automobile policy, he does not have to also qualify as an "insured" under the Business Auto Coverage Form.

State v. Lakes

120 Ohio App. 213 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1964

Unquestionably, this witness qualified as an expert witness. Some cases hold that opinion testimony of this nature is not admissible. Carter v. State, 4 Ohio App., 193 . … The evidence also establishes the fact that the defendant claimed to own the property in question.

Davis v. Allen, Unpublished Decision (1-18-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2002

A court may not dismiss a complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds where the statute's bar is not clearly evident from the wording of the complaint. Velotta v. … In their fifth assignment of error, the Davises claim that the trial court made no finding of absolute or qualified immunity as to the city, Cunningham and Bohnert.

State v. Walker

217 N.E.3d 79 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2023

When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person subjectively believes that there is a high probability … Thus, [the officer] was qualified to testify as an expert about gang-related matters. Drummond, 2006-Ohio-5084, at ¶ 115-116.

State Ex Rel. R.T.G., Inc. v. State

141 Ohio App. 3d 784 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 2001

Further, such activity should be analyzed under a qualified nuisance theory. … Instead, we apply a qualified nuisance standard.

State v. Lee

2020 Ohio 3580 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 2020

Tr. 43). {¶60} Appellant argues the harm in this case does not qualify as so great or unusual pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) because this was not a crime of violence and because she made full … First, appellant must establish that counsel's performance has fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation. Strickland v.

Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products Co.

175 Ohio App. 3d 227 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2008

It reasoned that “[bjecause R.C. 2745.01 imposes excessive standards (deliberate and intentional act), with a heightened burden of proof (clear and convincing evidence), it is *233 clearly not ‘a law that furthers the “ * … Notwithstanding, the General Assembly has enacted R.C. 2745.01, and, again, seeks to cloak employers with immunity.

Fabian v. City of Steubenville, Unpublished Decision (9-28-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2001

"When the state consents to be sued, it may qualify and draw perimeters around that granted right without violating * * * equal protection. … Furthermore, R.C. 2744.03 cannot be used to establish liability independent of R.C. 2744.02 . Cater, supra at 24, 32 .

Hashem v. Perk Co., Inc.

2024 Ohio 1984 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 23, 2024

“Privilege” is defined as “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.” … They, therefore, cannot establish a trespass claim against Perk.

State v. Neal

2025 Ohio 312 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2025

the trial court directly asked if appellant still wanted to represent himself, appellant repeatedly and clearly stated that he did. … The record clearly establishes the appellant’s Michigan conviction. {¶ 51} In this instance, the Michigan statute under which appellant was convicted involved the identical elements of R.C.

Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Burton

53 Ohio App. 241 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 1935

, but had been qualified only in the particular branch of medicine known as X-ray. … Not all of the facts established by the testimony need be incorporated in any single question propounded to the, expert and it was for the jury to determine whether such opinion was based substantially upon the facts established

Neville v. City of Wyoming, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2002

We turn now to the Nevilles' other claims, beginning with qualified nuisance. … . 14 Thus, the Nevilles' claim for qualified nuisance is substantially the same as their negligence claim.