Case law

Ditech Fin., L.L.C. v. Balimunkwe

2025 Ohio 4884 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2025

Before Carlson could testify as an expert, the magistrate had to qualify her as such under Evid.R. 702. … After reading her report and hearing her testimony at a hearing one day before trial, the magistrate concluded she was not qualified.

State v. Williams

80 Ohio App. 3d 648 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 20, 1992

The claim that he had been so qualified in previous trials is a factor to be considered but is by no means controlling. … Such will not be recognized unless, “but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v.

Keyse v. Cleveland Clinic Found.

2024 Ohio 2806 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2024

She contends that the trial court should therefore have denied summary judgment because there are disputed issues of fact over whether Shepherd qualifies as a third party under Biddle. … Although HIPAA may provide guidance for establishing Biddle liability, “it is well-settled that a HIPAA violation does not create a private cause of action for the party whose information has been released.”

Shaper v. Tracy

97 Ohio App. 3d 760 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1994

Clearly, when a state chooses to sell *764 bonds and enter into the securities market, it is acting as a market participant. However, when a state chooses to tax its citizens, it is acting as a market regulator. … In a case where a party seeks injunctive, or prospective relief, a state official in his or her official capacity does qualify as a “person” for purposes of Section 1983.

Turek v. Vaughn

154 Ohio App. 3d 612 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2003

As an initial matter, the definition is multifaceted and clearly indicates that the extent of coverage provided is conditional upon the nature of the named insured. … The definition clearly includes more than just the educational service center as insureds.

Karsnak v. Chess Fin. Corp.

2012 Ohio 1359 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2012

Because an RIF necessarily results in the termination of otherwise qualified employees, we have held that “an employer’s decision to discharge a qualified, older employee should not be considered ‘inherently suspicious’ … because ‘in a RIF, qualified employees are going to be discharged.’”

State v. Durant

159 Ohio App. 3d 208 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2004

witness for the prosecution is a circumstance tending to show that the testimony of the witness is or may be influenced by the expectation or hope that, by aiding in the conviction of the defendant, he might be granted immunity … Nothing in the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion establishes that the witness actually was under indictment.

State v. Nebe

26 Ohio Law. Abs. 581 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1937

Inasmuch as the indictment clearly stated ifie offense charged, we do .lot see the propriety of s demand for a bill of particulars. … The testimony of two character witnesses was taken from the jury’s consideration for the very proper reason that upon cross-examination it was conclusively established that they could not qualify.

Fairfax Homes, Inc. v. Blue Belle, Inc., 2007ca00077 (5-15-2008)

2008 Ohio 2400 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 15, 2008

The contract provided for the sale of lots in Phase IV for the sum of $48,500.00 each, and stated: {¶ 4} "(C)ontingent upon Buyer of property qualifying for financing. Buyer to receive a 3% excavation credit at closing. … The contract clearly identifies the parties to the contract, the subject of the contract, the quantity of land being sold and the price. The location of the lots was not an essential term of the contract.

Kohler v. Snow Village, Inc.

16 Ohio App. 3d 350 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 1984

Rather than sell their interest in the cooperative, however, the appellees, after moving out and establishing a new residence in Grafton, Ohio, sought to sublet their unit to James Kohler’s younger sister, Sallie. … II We have established that the oc *356 cupancy agreement between the parties is lawful and valid.

State v. Barnthouse

2019 Ohio 5209 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2019

Stopler qualified as the “owner” of the funds in the joint-checking account or that he contributed financially to the funds from the joint-checking account. This formalistic argument posited by Mr. … Stark No. 2017-CR-2423, 2019-Ohio-4665, ¶ 22 (account holder’s testimony and bank records sufficient to establish that joint-checking account holder was also “owner” on account); State v. Jones, 8th Dist.

Donovan v. Decker

98 Ohio App. 183 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 1953

The distinction between void and voidable judgments is clearly pointed out in the case of Snyder v. Clough, 71 Oh Ap 440. The first syllabus of that case is as follows: “1. … It is next urged that the Donovans successfully maintained the burden of proof in the original action establishing that they were “interested parties” who had a legal right to contest the will.

State v. Johnson

2025 Ohio 890 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2025

But he was clearly working the whole time on this ticket. And the whole thing only took seventeen or excuse me, thirteen minutes. … Although Johnson recognizes that he was not a “qualifying adult” under the statute, he argues that the State did not establish that the other occupants of the vehicle were not “qualifying adults.” {¶68} Regardless

State v. White

2023 Ohio 4391 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2023

In stating its reasons for granting the motion, the court said that “the standard of review established by the majority in Gwynne IV is contrary to the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). … White’s offenses undoubtedly qualify as the worst.

State v. Luce

2017 Ohio 4472 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2017

Schlievert established that a spiral fracture to the femur is not the sort of injury that would occur without significant force akin to physical abuse. … Undoubtedly, Burr was not qualified as an expert in this case.

Board of Park Commissioners v. Krumreig

97 Ohio App. 135 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1953

Fishing and boating come clearly within such purposes. If it were not so, the plaintiff would have no right to grant boat livery and fishing concessions at and within the Port of Lakewood as it has done. … We hold that the plaintiff is in the exercise of a governmental function and is immune from *153 liability for any wrongful conduct, even if shown as charged in defendant’s cross-petition.

Malloy v. Malloy, 8-08-15 (4-27-2009)

2009 Ohio 1918 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2009

the acquisition of a professional degree of the other party; ( k) The time and expense necessary for the spouse who is seeking spousal support to acquire education, training, or job experience so that the spouse will be qualified … While the Plaintiff offered testimony concerning her financial needs for spousal support, there was no specific testimony as to a standard of living of the *Page 11 parties' established during the marriage, it is clear from

Solomon Cultivation Corp. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce

2021 Ohio 46 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2021

The rules for the scoring were reasonably definite and clearly outlined in the department's application instructions. … Solomon requested, and was provided, an opportunity to challenge, at an administrative hearing, the department's finding that Solomon did not qualify for a medical marijuana cultivator level I provisional license.

State v. Richardson

2016 Ohio 8081 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 2016

The phrase “qualified witness” should be broadly interpreted. Hall, 2d Dist. … Nor was he an “other qualified witness” under the rule.

State v. Perry, Unpublished Decision (1-6-2005)

2005 Ohio 27 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 2005

." {¶ 37} In order for Baker's "out-of-court statements," i.e., his stricken trial testimony, to qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule under Evid.R. 804(B)(3), it must be established that (1) Baker was unavailable as … Outcalt (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 147 , 438 N.E.2d 443 . {¶ 47} Moreover, R.C. 2945.44 (A), immunity for witnesses turning state's evidence, "clearly reflects the intent of the General Assembly that immunity be used only as a