Case law

State v. Lucas

240 N.E.3d 843 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2024

Based on these facts, we find S.L.’s statements within the 911 call are not the result of reflective thought and qualified as excited utterances. See Cleveland v. Myles, 8th Dist. … “‘Privilege’ means 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).

State v. Carswell

2021 Ohio 3379 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2021

Reversal is warranted only if the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different absent the error. {¶ 41} The record of this case establishes only one instance in which anything remotely resembling a reference … McCall was properly qualified as an expert. {¶ 56} Ms.

In re K.T.

2026 Ohio 1872 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 21, 2026

The record clearly and convincingly supports the juvenile court’s findings. … However, a closer examination of the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the juvenile court properly ruled that permanent custody was in the Boys’ best interest.

Department of Taxation v. Mizer

97 Ohio App. 458 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 1954

It is a well established principle of law that an absolute power of disposition or alienation in the first taker defeats a limitation over by way of executory devise. … The concluding clause in Item IV clearly created a condition or contingency which may happen and which comes within the purview of §5343 GC, and the Court should have heeded it.

State v. Travis

2019 Ohio 4407 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2019

The reasons for the invocation of her Fifth Amendment right is number one, the State will not be providing any type of immunity. Number two, the defense cannot provide immunity. … Number three, the potential exists to incriminate herself without the protection of immunity.

Rankin v. C.C.D.C.F.S., Unpublished Decision (12-21-2006)

2006 Ohio 6759 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2006

There was direct contact between D.M. and DCFS, and D.M. was clearly justified in relying on DCFS for reasonable protection. … Clearly, such materials are necessary and relevant to the pending action.

Ekstrom v. Cuyahoga County Community College

150 Ohio App. 3d 169 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2002

The other positions were either not filled, bargaining unit positions for which plaintiff was not *180 qualified, or declined by plaintiff. … Clearly, plaintiff has not raised an inference that CCC is that “unusual employer who discriminated against the majority.” Carney v. Cleveland Hts.-Univ. Hts. City School Dist., supra.

Holiday Homes, Inc. v. Butler County Board of Zoning Appeals

35 Ohio App. 3d 161 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 26, 1987

Finally, we note that our conclusion that the county planning commission lacks the power to prevent the granting of conditional use permits for the establishment of a mobile home park in an A-l district is clearly contemplated … Such an R-MHP district is clearly not involved in this case.

State v. Rivera

2019 Ohio 62 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2019

“Expert testimony is not required to establish substantial impairment, and the existence of a substantial impairment may be proven by the victim’s testimony.” State v. Dasen, 9th Dist. … Rivera’s behavior, given that she had not been qualified to testify in that capacity. {¶22} Mr.

Literary Club v. McClain

2020 Ohio 3956 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 2020

“The onus is on the taxpayer to show that the language of the statute ‘clearly express[es] the exemption’ in relation to the facts of the claim.” Anderson/Maltbie Partnership v. … Thus, the house is not tax exempt under R.C. 5709.12(B). {¶40} The Club has failed to show that it is clearly entitled to tax exemption under R.C. 5709.12 or 5709.121.

State, Ex Rel. Hyter v. Teater

52 Ohio App. 2d 150 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1977

In effect, the order of the chief established the mourning dove as a game bird. This is a usurpation of legislative authority, since game and nongame birds have been clearly defined in E. C. 1531.-01. … The division shall clearly define and mark the - boundaries of the lands and waters upon which the taking of any wild animals is prohibited.”

Motorists Mutual Insurance v. Dandy-Jim, Inc.

182 Ohio App. 3d 311 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 14, 2009

The rule is a rule of construction that provides that qualifying language in a statute or contract modifies the last antecedent before that language, that is, the word or phrase most immediately preceding the qualifying language … Motorists further argues that there was no violation of the claimants’ right of privacy because to establish a claim for invasion of privacy, a claimant must establish something beyond a mere inconvenience, and Dandy-Jim’

Thomas v. Chimera

2023 Ohio 2132 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2023

He testified that in the video, “we can clearly see the end of the bar right here (indicating). … A successful primary assumption of the risk defense means that the duty element of negligence is not established as a matter of law. Id.

Uniform Rules & Regulations v. Board of Tax Appeals

80 Ohio Law. Abs. 129 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 1958

Taxation is an extremely complicated subject which the Legislature may wisely leave to the Tax Board, which is especially qualified and sits in continuous session. … It should also be noted that every presumption of validity attends the acts of the Legislature and that they are not to be stricken down unless clearly shown to be unauthorized or in violation of some express constitutional

State v. Waddy

2016 Ohio 4911 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2016

Specifically, appellant asserts the trial court incorrectly focused on the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, instead of whether appellant had clearly and convincingly established he was unavoidably … Workman, 689 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir.2012), which held that "defendants in Atkins proceedings have the right to effective counsel," and that such right was "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court

State v. Thompson

2019 Ohio 5407 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2019

The court did not however, qualify the right to trial as a right to a jury trial. … The essential right is that of a trial and jury serves to qualify this right.

Doyle v. Fairfield Machine Co., Inc.

120 Ohio App. 3d 192 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 5, 1997

Fraudulent conduct may not be established by conjecture; it must be proved by direct evidence or justifiable inferences from established facts. Pumphrey v. … Poor predictive ability does not necessarily establish lack of good faith. Loder, supra, 113 Ohio App.3d at 675 , 681 N.E.2d at 1362 .

State v. Scott

2024 Ohio 975 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2024

A defendant is entitled to a plain error finding where it is established that but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different. State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. … The state introduced the testimony of Tom Ciula (“Ciula”) as a forensic video specialist; however, they did not seek to qualify Ciula as an expert witness. Ciula collected the video surveillance from Gas USA.

Davis v. Delaware County Commissioners, 06-Ca-0-10-0078 (2-24-2009)

2009 Ohio 825 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2009

This section clearly grants authority to the sheriff to operate the CWPSCS unless he gives notice of his decision to not operate the system. … Respondents have failed to establish the necessary elements to justify the issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus.

State v. Hopper

2024 Ohio 2635 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2024

After weighing the testimony and evidence and inferences to be drawn therefrom, and in consideration of the credibility of the witnesses’ and their testimonies, we cannot say that the jury clearly lost its way in entering … (finding that pursuant to Evid.R. 803(6), records that are normally considered inadmissible hearsay may be entered into evidence if it is “shown by the custodian or other qualified witness or as provided by Rule 901(B)(