Case law

State v. Dibble

2014 Ohio 5754 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2014

Indeed, the trial court expressly stated that "[t]he affidavit does not contain any information that establishes there is a substantial basis to conclude that evidence of gross sexual imposition or evidence of correspondence … First, the place to be searched is clearly identified as appellant's home address, which was known to the officers.

State ex rel. Cavanagh v. Cleveland

2011 Ohio 3840 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2011

Mandamus — Right to Promotion {¶ 25} It is well established that this court is permitted to grant a writ of mandamus if the relator affirmatively establishes that (1) the relator possesses a clear legal right to … Herein, we can only find that the degree of public benefit was minimal at best, since the request for public records was clearly employed in place of discovery in an attempt to establish Cavanagh’s claim for mandamus.

Cleveland v. Newell

2024 Ohio 2064 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 30, 2024

Lash was an expert witness, the city established that Dr. … required to qualify her as an expert. Dr. Lash’s testimony established that she graduated from veterinarian school in 2005 and has been licensed to practice in Ohio since her graduation. Dr.

State v. Adeshina

2023 Ohio 3654 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2023

It is well established that: “A plea of guilty is a complete admission of guilt. … Chapter 2907, it does not qualify as a felony sex offense as defined in R.C. 2967.28.

State v. Schilling

65 Ohio App. 3d 154 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1989

caution, and that the evidence was handled in accordance with established and accepted procedures while in the custody of the laboratory, as required under Ohio Revised Code Section 2925.51(A). … have a portion of the substance that is the basis of the alleged violation preserved for the benefit of independent analysis performed by a laboratory analyst employed by the accused person, or, if he is indigent, by a qualified

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ghiz

101 N.E.3d 1005 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2017

Therefore, Relators have clearly met their burden to demonstrate that they are entitled to the release of information other than identifying information. {¶ 15} The issue that remains for us to decide is whether juror-identifying … The court concluded that "the First Amendment qualified right to access extends to juror names and addresses." (Emphasis added.) Id.

City of Cincinnati v. M & M Metals, Inc.

32 Ohio App. 2d 147 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 1972

There is no question that the defendant qualifies as a processor. … The record does demonstrate that the defendant failed to employ the procedure clearly requii'ed to establish a weight discharge limit exception for a processor under section 2501-1.1.

State v. Barzacchini

96 Ohio App. 3d 440 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1994

The Court erred in allowing Kevin Clouse to testify as an expert when he was not qualified as an expert and certainly not qualified to testify as an expert in any particular field. • “6. … qualified to testify as such.

State v. Whites Landing Fisheries, L.L.C.

96 N.E.3d 1236 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 2017

R.C. 2901.22(C). {¶ 8} WLF asserts that the state failed to establish its catch contained more than ten percent, by weight, of undersized fish. … The allegation did not lead to a conviction nor was the line of questioning “clearly probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness.”

Moore v. E.I. DuPontde Nemours Co.

2015 Ohio 5331 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2015

However, the affidavit does not affirmatively establish that Dr. Borders is qualified to offer an opinion above and beyond Mr. Click's psychiatric treatment.” {¶32} In the case sub judice, Dr. … As such, his affidavit does not affirmatively establish that he is qualified to render an opinion on the cause of Mr. Moore’s heart attack. {¶35} Furthermore, assuming arguendo that Dr.

City of Youngstown v. Ortiz

153 Ohio App. 3d 271 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 1, 2003

The competency proceeding in this case clearly aids and is subordinate to the underlying main proceeding, which is the criminal case itself. … Palumbo clearly stated his opinion as to how long it would take appellant to be restored to competency: “in [appellant’s] case, it would be more like two or three months.” Although Dr.

Daugherty v. Daugherty

2012 Ohio 1520 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2012

Additionally, if the case involves multiple parties or multiple claims, the court’s order must ordinarily meet the requirements of Civ.R. 54(B) to qualify as a final order. … Daugherty correctly points out that the only time the court received any evidence in this case to establish that he engaged in domestic violence against Ms.

Bunten v. Bunten

126 Ohio App. 3d 443 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 1998

While the 1993 shared parenting plan established that the children would attend school in the Marysville City School System, a disagreement arose between the parties regarding which elementary school in the city the children … Clearly, the trial court was correct in its conclusion that the best interests of the children were not being met by the current shared parenting plan.

Kirn v. Kraus Plumbing & Heating Co.

12 Ohio App. 55 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1919

That the same rule prevails in this country is well established.” He cites Ashurst’s Appeal, 60 Pa. St. 290, and Stark Bank v. U. S. Pottery Co., 34 Vt., 144 . … Such officers shall be elected for one year or until their successors are elected and qualified.”

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. Withrow

2016 Ohio 2884 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 6, 2016

to conclude that the trial court is clearly wrong.” … This consecutive sentence of eighteen years is more than harsh. {¶ 51} The fact that the trial court’s judgment is subject to a deferential standard of review under Marcum does not immunize it from meaningful

State v. Moore

2025 Ohio 2623 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2025

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." R.C. 2901.01(A)(12). … Street's testimony, as believed by the trial court, established that appellant was on her property, only inches from her dining room window, despite him knowing that he did not have permission to be on her property.

Klepper v. Bd. of Regents

2 Ohio App. Unrep. 558 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1990

Appellant was formally enrolled at Ohio State University and paid the in-state tuition amount established for Ohio residents. … Furthermore, there is no precedent which establishes the pursuance of a college education as being a fundamental right.

Rhea v. Rhea

2017 Ohio 4141 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2017

"The burden then shifts to the party opposing the motion to establish a defense for nonpayment." … Second, appellant's general statement about the divorce decree requiring the support payment withheld from his income does not clearly establish a defense to contempt.

Vacchiano v. State

16 Ohio Law. Abs. 279 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 1933

as presented at the first application for a rehearing, we are of the opinion that the trial court was justified in reaching the conclusion that it did reach with reference to 'the qualifications of said juror, ánd we are clearly … It is apparent that the trial court found either that she re-established her residence in Lucas County after so voting, or that she voted illegally in the adjoining county while she was temporarily in said county on a visit