Case law

Robson v. Allstate Ins., Unpublished Decision (9-18-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2001

Contractually, appellant and appellee agreed to the policy's family tort immunity language. … It would only follow logically that the agreed immunity of the underlying policy would apply to the uninsured motorist portion of the policy. Without uniformity in its application, why include the immunity language?

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

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).

Beatty v. Fultz, 22387 (10-17-2008)

2008 Ohio 5461 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2008

Moreover, based on the testiony offered by other medical experts, Beatty clearly was not prejudiced by the limitations on Basinger's testimony. {¶ 10} Basinger was a nurse practitioner who worked under the supervision of … Because Beatty presented opinions about the likelihood of future problems with her back from two doctors who were fully qualified to render such opinions, she clearly was not prejudiced by the exclusion of Basinger's opinions

State v. Timpe

2015 Ohio 5033 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2015

Thus, "the language in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes an 'extremely deferential standard of review' for 'the restriction is on the appellate court, not the trial judge.'" Crawford, quoting Venes. … substantial grounds to mitigate the offender's conduct," appellant's history of being abused by his brother and being bullied and harassed at school, his border-line mental retardation, and his mental health history qualify

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.”

Wiebold Studio, Inc. v. Old World Restorations, Inc.

19 Ohio App. 3d 246 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 1985

The formulas, patterns, devices, or compilations of information cannot qualify as trade secrets if they are of common knowledge or use in the trade. … We find nothing in the evidence, however, to establish that the use of these items was so unique, and competitively advantageous as to qualify them as trade secrets.

State v. Jones

35 Ohio App. 2d 92 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 1, 1973

Indeed, were we so to rule, a suspect could, by refusing to sign and subsequently talking freely, enjoy the luxury of an immunity bath at no price at all.” Also pertinent is United States v. Priest (C. C. … The introduction of the statement was prejudicial and was clearly one of the facts which prompted the trial court to make a finding of guilty.

State v. H.M.

2025 Ohio 5522 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2025

In May 2011, the trial court determined that H.M. may be transferred to low-risk supervision but that he needed to have a monthly payment plan established for restitution. … Although a civil money judgment clearly obligates the judgment-debtor to satisfy the judgment, until the judgment-creditor actually has payment in hand, the debt has not been satisfied, nor can the judgment

Cooper v. Commercial Sav. Bank

2015 Ohio 4131 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 2015

Cooper claims that the amendment should have been permitted because 1) he had overlooked a third-party beneficiary claim; 2) he wanted to clarify factual allegations more precisely; and 3) he wanted to more clearly set … “[I]t is well settled that a party may not simply use a self-serving affidavit to establish a genuine issue of material fact if such an affidavit contains nothing more than bare contradictions of other competent evidence

Beeson v. Criss

7 Ohio App. 482 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 1917

We think that this testimony should have gone to the jury and that its exclusion by the court was ■clearly prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff below. … allegations in his petition it seems to us that it was clearly competent to show by the witness, Hess, who qualified as an expert, just -what plaintiff attempted to prove by ■this testimony; and therefore we hold that it

State v. Scott

245 N.E.3d 1167 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2024

To satisfy that standard, we must clearly and convincingly find the trial court’s imposition of restitution was “ ‘ “in violation of statute or legal regulations at a given time.” ’ ” State v. … “Consequently, the statutes governing ‘restitution’ are still used to determine which [economic] losses qualify for restitution.”

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 A.E.

2025 Ohio 1466 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2025

Although it is well established that the right to parent one’s child is a fundamental right, the government has broad authority to intervene to protect a child’s health or safety. … juvenile court’s determinations that at the time of trial, the children could not be placed with their respective parents within a reasonable time, they had been in the custody of CCDCFS for over two years and no longer qualified

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 .

State v. Leach

2024 Ohio 3145 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 2024

When the victim is still under a "nervous state of excitement," the victim's statement may qualify as an excited utterance. Id.; see also State v. … It could not be established how much of the program Emma had actually watched.

Roberts v. McCoy

2017 Ohio 1329 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2017

The evidence of the condition in the drop ceiling clearly demonstrates it was observable or discoverable. … Next, she checked "no" to the question: "[h]ave you ever had the property inspected for mold by a qualified inspector?"

Pope v. Trotwood-Madison City School, Unpublished Decision (3-19-2004)

2004 Ohio 1314 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2004

Schools clearly fall within this category. … . {¶ 13} When liability is established pursuant to R.C. 2744.02 (B), a political subdivision may nonetheless avoid liability if it can establish one of the defenses or immunities set forth in R.C. 2744.03 .

State ex rel. Lott v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio

2023 Ohio 3554 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2023

In its second objection, the commission argues the magistrate erred because incarceration should not qualify as a special circumstance. We disagree. … The burden was on claimant to establish that his rehabilitation classes constituted "special circumstances."

Adamson v. Varnau

2014 Ohio 5739 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2014

Rather, the appeal tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence and whether the evidence, if believed, clearly and convincingly requires removal under R.C. 3.07. … Varnau and Sheriff Wenninger is "cumbersome, inefficient, ineffectual and unnecessary," and "clearly not well suited to best practices."