Case law

In Re Burch

73 Ohio App. 97 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 1943

The use of the term “moral turpitude” in our statute providing for disbarment (Section 1707, General Code) clearly contemplates something more than conviction of a crime; otherwise the use of the words would be the introduction … The charge that Burch acted “with the purpose of promoting the political interests of the German Reich” is just not true; on the contrary, the evidence conclu *103 sively establishes that he was trying to promote the interests

Sawyer v. Montgomery

37 Ohio Law. Abs. 496 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1942

The trial court in its opinion, in referring to the rule of the Bloomgren case supra, said: “That case distinctly and positively holds that the law confers upon a vehicle having the right of way an absolute right, qualified … So it is that the circumstances of the instant case even more clearly impose upon the defendant, The Yellow Cab Company, the duty of exercising the proper degree of' care for the plaintiff, because here the plaintiff is a

Smoske v. Sicher, 2006-G-2720 (10-19-2007)

2007 Ohio 5617 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 2007

Thus, Smoske has clearly not met the statutory requirements. {¶ 37} Moreover, even if Smoske had properly registered the support order under R.C. 3115.46 , the trial court would have lacked subject matter jurisdiction to … Accordingly, section 202 only applies to proceedings to establish, enforce, or modify support orders of the forum state against an out-of-state respondent.

State v. Little

183 Ohio App. 3d 680 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2009

Thus, the defendant could not reasonably have expected the partially hidden contraband to be immune from being viewed from the air. … Special Agent Aspacher’s testimony, other than establishing that he knew the helicopter was flying in restricted airspace, did not affirmatively establish that the pilot followed the FAA regulations by maintaining contact

State v. Hernandez

2018 Ohio 5031 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2018

It stressed that “this is a pattern of conduct and this pattern of conduct is clearly pervasive based on her testimony.” … There is little reason to think that the court would not have qualified the detective as an expert on those matters had an objection been made.  IV.

State v. Fannin

2021 Ohio 2462 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2021

Thurman was qualified as an expert witness and formed her opinion based on M.M.'s medical history, M.M.' … Contrary to Fannin's arguments, the record clearly establishes that the state established venue.

Hoot v. Spencer Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals

2015 Ohio 3944 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2015

In particular, appellee found that the evidence presented at the hearing established that appellants were not “actually operating a salvage yard.” … Id. {¶ 19} In the case sub judice, the evidence does not clearly demonstrate that appellants continued to store items on the subject property.

State Ex Rel. Fulton Foundry & MacHine Co. v. Morse

101 Ohio App. 258 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 7, 1956

Ed., 579 , when he wrote in The Federalist: “No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; whenever a general power for doing it is included * … To determine to what extent legislative discretion is qualified, restricted or prohibited, resort must be had to other provisions of the Constitution. 10 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 318, Section 242.

Mathews v. Mathews

2013 Ohio 2471 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2013

It indicates clearly to the jury 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. Schandel, 07-Ca-848 (12-4-2008)

2008 Ohio 6359 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2008

II, Tr. 62-62). {¶ 41} Appellant argues that these witnesses were not qualified to give an opinion to the wire's value. … Teeter clearly stated that Sky Bank held a mortgage on the Dawson farm and that it foreclosed on the property in October 2005. She also clearly stated that the bank did not have title to the property until October 2006.

Fox v. Frank, Treas.

52 Ohio App. 483 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 1935

The constitution of the United States forbids the enforcing of a law which abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens or deprives any person of his property rights without due process of law, and by the constitution … As has been said, it is established by the courts of this state that every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of an act of the legislature.

State v. Hoskins

2025 Ohio 1946 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 30, 2025

-4- impose a prison term upon an offender who pleads guilty to a felony of the fifth degree that is not an offense of violence or that is a qualifying … It was significant to the court that Hoskins stole from unsuspecting citizens enjoying leisure activities within their community, and then used their credit cards to further victimize retail establishments in the area.

Circle v. O'Harra

13 Ohio App. 2d 205 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1968

The transfer was clearly for an antecedent debt. It may have been a preference under the bankruptcy law. It may have been a transfer in fraud of creditors. Cellar Lumber Co. v. … However, the evidence does not establish either. Further, we reject a mere preference or possible preference as an unjust enrichment giving rise to recovery in quasi contract.

Sobczak v. Sylvania, Unpublished Decision (3-9-2007)

2007 Ohio 1045 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2007

As such, none of them qualifies as a nuisance under R.C. 2744.02 (B)(3). Haynes , supra. … . {¶ 26} As recognized by the trial court, because appellant has failed to establish that an exception to sovereign immunity applies, there is no cause for further determination as to whether any of the R.C. 2744.03 defenses

Conway v. Thermafab Alloy, Inc.

2013 Ohio 1539 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2013

their defamation claim because there was no publication of a defamatory statement, and the defendants had acted within their qualified privilege. … Rather, the docket clearly indicates that this order pertained to plaintiffs’ April 30, 2010 request that they be given until June 17, 2010, to file their brief in opposition.

Frederic v. Willoughby, 2007-P-0084 (6-27-2008)

2008 Ohio 3259 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2008

At most, appellants have provided evidence, which, if believed by a trier-of-fact, could establish that Mr. and Mrs. … As was the case in Doe , the true nature of subject matter of appellants' complaint was "clearly intentional acts of offensive touching."

Consumer Portfolio Servs. v. Staples, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2007)

2007 Ohio 1531 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2007

. * * * However, that immunity is not absolute. * * * {¶ 19} "The second tier of the analysis requires a court to determine whether any of the five exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02 (B) apply to expose the political … Thus, Bellevue is entitled to immunity in the instant case.

In Re Appeal of Mendlowitz

9 Ohio App. 2d 83 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1967

The Legislature has clearly created a statutory right to renewal unless the director shows “good cause.” The burden is upon the department to prove “good cause” by a preponderance of the evidence. … However, nothing in the opinion in that case suggests that the records offered and admitted there failed to qualify for admission under the general rules of evidence.

Ignath v. State

16 Ohio App. 191 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 29, 1922

addressed to the constable, made a search of the premises of plaintiff in error located at 4908 Detroit avenue, wherein they found four gallons of whiskey, which, witnesses Metta and Naylor testified after being properly qualified … It is clearly evident that if the defendant lawfully had possession of intoxicating liquor it must have been held under one of the preceding exceptions specified in the act.

City of Cleveland v. Sundermeier

48 Ohio App. 3d 204 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1989

It is well-established that, in limited circumstances, private properly rights must yield to free speech rights. See Marsh v. Alabama (1946), 326 U.S. 501 . … right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or of the press. * * *” While the Ohio Constitution does not specifically refer to only state interference with the right to free speech, it clearly