Case law

Robertson v. Park

2026 Ohio 388 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2026

Grandmother argued that based on Mother's objections, Mother was asserting that the evidence established her entitlement to a DVCPO based upon having established that Grandmother committed menacing by stalking, referring … Grandmother objected on the basis that Walker was not qualified to give an opinion because she was not a psychiatrist or psychologist.

State v. Robertson

2012 Ohio 2955 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2012

to establish a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1). … as a thirteenth juror and “in reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses, and determines whether in resolving conflicts in evidence the jury ‘clearly

State v. Smith

2012 Ohio 2956 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2012

the issue which is to be established before them. … R.C. 2921.02(B) provides, in part, No person, either before or after he is elected, appointed, qualified, employed, summoned, or sworn as a public servant or party official, shall knowingly

Lowe v. Local Union No. 14 U.A.W.

145 N.E.3d 363 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2020

In its answer, the BOE asserted several affirmative defenses, including sovereign and statutory immunity. {¶ 6} The matter proceeded through pretrial discovery, during which deposition testimony was elicited from … Even assuming arguendo that appellants were invitees, the record clearly demonstrates that the condition was open and obvious so as to negate any duty on the part of appellee.”); see also Armstrong, supra, 99 Ohio St.3d

Huffman v. Bd. of Cty. Commrs., Unpublished Decision (6-28-2006)

2006 Ohio 3479 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2006

R.C. 2744.03 lists additional defenses and/or immunities that may be asserted to establish nonliability. … may be asserted to establish nonliability: {¶ 35} "(1) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the employee involved was engaged in the performance of a judicial, quasi-judicial, prosecutorial, legislative,

State v. Savors

2010 Ohio 6084 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2010

. {¶29} Having been arrested on a parole violation and transported to the jail, appellant was clearly in custody. The issue then becomes whether Sgt. … California (1967), 386 U.S. 18, 24. {¶35} Even without the evidence appellant sought to suppress, the state still established appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Kleisch v. Cleveland State University, Unpublished Decision (3-21-2006)

2006 Ohio 1300 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2006

David (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 314 , 318 ; Wallace, at ¶ 22. 5 {¶ 10} "[T]he duty element of negligence may be established by common law, by legislative enactment, or by the particular circumstances of a given case." … to determine whether the officer or employee is entitled to personal immunity under section 9.86 of the Revised Code."

State v. Vale

2023 Ohio 4287 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2023

No. 13-CV-13295 (July 31, 2015) (stating that “[s]everal courts have concluded that there is no clearly established federal Constitutional right to the disclosure of Brady material prior to the entry of a guilty plea, without … Lucas, 753 F.3d 606 (6th Cir.2014), in the context of a qualified immunity defense, the Sixth Circuit held that there was “no clearly established obligation to disclose exculpatory Brady material * * * in time to be put to

State v. Reynolds

2022 Ohio 3506 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2022

She then summarized what she learned about some of the different medications Reynolds is prescribed: • Xanax: “a depressant and it depresses your immune system and it helps treat medical conditions … Problematically, Reynolds did not object to the state’s request to qualify Moomey as a drug recognition expert, nor did she object to the admissibility of Moomey’s observations and opinions. {¶ 32} In any event,

In Re Chappell

164 Ohio App. 3d 628 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 2005

R.C. 2152.01(A) states very clearly that one of the purposes of juvenile dispositions is “to provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children.” … Appellant has not presented any persuasive new arguments to add to the established caselaw on this topic, and his assignment of error is hereby overruled.

Williams v. Williams

116 Ohio App. 3d 320 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1996

the marriage; “(f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because he will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; “(g) The standard of living of the parties established … Following the divorce of the parties, appellant will clearly have need of more money to provide for her daily needs than she had prior to the divorce.

Demereaux v. State

35 Ohio App. 418 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 2, 1930

Clearly the second sentence authorizes the mayor of the city of Portsmouth to appoint such substitute. … In the absence of any knowledge of what forms have been prescribed and established for that court, we assume that the record before us com *425 plies with that court’s regulations.

Hickman v. Coshocton Real Estate Co.

58 Ohio App. 38 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1936

business, from which the amount of such profits may be established with reasonable certainty.” … They are properly qualified as experts. They gave their opinion as to the value thereof. They were then further interrogated, in chief, as to what they based that value upon.

Bleise v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

2025 Ohio 5814 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2025

First, ODRC argued that its participation in the Ohio workers’ compensation system rendered it immune from Ms. Bleise’s negligence claim. (Id. at 4-7.) … With respect to her second claim, ODRC recognized immunity under R.C.

Lavery v. Ohio Liquor Control Commission

112 Ohio App. 3d 494 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1996

According to the record, on November 12, 1993, the agents entered Lavery’s Pub, an establishment licensed by the OLCC to sell alcoholic beverages. … R.C. 2915.01(F)(2) states that a "ticket, token, or other device representing a chance, share, or interest in a scheme of chance” qualifies as a "gambling device.”

Griffits v. Village of Newburgh Heights, 91428 (2-5-2009)

2009 Ohio 493 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2009

City of Xenia , 115 Ohio St.3d 77 , 2007-Ohio-4839 , 873 N.E.2d 878 , the court clearly rendered judgment as to fewer than all the parties. … No. 88262, 2007-Ohio-1716 , this court held that "common law agency principles are clearly trumped by the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act." *Page 1

Rapport v. Kochovski

185 Ohio App. 3d 309 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2009

Clearly, the trial court’s decision that appellant made false representations with the intent to mislead is basically unchallenged. … In order to prevail under a plain-error analysis, appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different but for the error. Long .

Youngstown State Univ. v. State Emp. Relations Bd.

2016 Ohio 2649 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2016

It has been long and well established that it is the duty of every judicial tribunal to decide actual controversies between parties legitimately affected by specific facts and to render … preparation for the conduct of collective negotiations, administer collectively negotiated agreements, or have a major role in personnel administration. {¶ 18} The Ohio General Assembly clearly

State v. Mitchell

2022 Ohio 3818 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2022

Forensic evidence from the bat identified Mitchell as the offender responsible for hitting the victim over the head and established his identity as one of the persons who invaded the victims’ home. … During the plea colloquy, the trial court advised Mitchell that the felonious assault offense was a qualifying, second-degree felony offense under R.C. 2929.144 and 2929.14(A)(2)(a).

Eberly v. Barmet Industries, Inc.

3 Ohio App. Unrep. 102 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 16, 1990

Further, subsection (AX2) establishes damage proportionality. Only in the next section, i.e., R.C. 2315.19(B), is contributory negligence drawn into the equation. … It avoids the clearly inequitable result which would have otherwise occurred in the case at bar whereby Thomas would have been completely responsible for Couch's damages regardless of his actual percentage of fault.