Case law

State v. Crawford

2025 Ohio 630 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2025

. {¶13} Crawford testified that she closed her apartment door after the juvenile entered because she had just been discharged from the hospital and she had to stay isolated due to her immune system. … “Purpose can be established by circumstantial evidence and may be ascertained from the surrounding facts and circumstances.” State v. Moss, 2018-Ohio- 4747, ¶ 7 (9th Dist.), quoting North Ridgeville v.

State v. Batty

2014 Ohio 2826 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2014

We also find Appellant’s prison sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. … As such, we further find Appellant’s sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Rankin v. C.C.D.C.F.S., Unpublished Decision (12-21-2006)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

State v. Shurelds

2025 Ohio 2638 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2025

-5- Case No. 1-24-39 R.C. 2911.11(A)(1). {¶11} In her first assignment of error, Shurelds argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to establish that she … “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.”

State, Ex Rel. Assn. v. Board

54 Ohio App. 2d 235 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 1978

Appellant contends that paragraph 4 of the statute, *Page 238 supra, clearly provides that a board may enter into a limited contract with any teacher who has been in its employ for less than three years, and thus the Mt. … Our audit of the record establishes that there was no basis for any monetary award below since there was no evidence adduced upon which the court could make such an award. Thus, the cross appellant's assignment fails.

Doolittle v. Shook, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2007)

2007 Ohio 1412 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2007

"Under the first tier, R.C. 2744.02 (A) grants broad immunity to political subdivisions. If immunity is established under R.C. 2744.02 (A), such immunity is not absolute, however. … This code section does not even clearly require any mandatory duty of the Board of Health, let alone impose civil liability for failure to perform a duty.

Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. v. Triad Architects, Ltd.

196 Ohio App. 3d 784 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2011

See also 8 Lord, Williston on Contracts (4th Ed. 2010) 636, 19:59 (“[I]f the parties clearly do intend that the risk of nonpayment be borne by the subcontractor and clearly express that intent by making the right of the subcontractor … The guide goes on to caution that “[a] pay-if-paid clause must clearly establish the intent of the parties to shift the credit risk of the Owner’s insolvency and should include the words ‘condition precedent.’ ” To modify

Guy v. Shorey

2019 Ohio 977 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2019

LEXIS 2596, 9 (June 11, 1998), and we apply the usual rules regarding the weight of the evidence: we consider whether “the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the … James acknowledged, at the time, that his consulting business did not provide him with the income necessary to qualify for refinancing.

Whitler v. McFaul, Unpublished Decision (3-9-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2000

The answer of McFaul and the county was a general denial and affirmative defenses of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, good faith immunity, actions under court order, Civ.R. 12(B)(6), and Civ.R. 19. … under the doctrine of qualified immunity."

Mentor v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co.

235 N.E.3d 968 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2024

Facilities may be established “as are necessary or convenient by the Grantees” at such locations “as the Grantees may determine.” … The language “for public and private use” does not qualify the nature of the grant itself, i.e., it does not grant separate public and private interests in the utility easement, but qualifies the purpose of the grant as

State v. Fowler

27 Ohio App. 3d 149 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 1985

Evid. 804(b)(5) (usually referred to as the “catch-all” exception), and because it recognized a common-law tendency toward an “open-ended” exception, it would allow into evidence a written statement which would qualify under … Ill “The verdicts of the trial court, as to each and every count of the indictment, were clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence.”

State v. White

2016 Ohio 3329 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2016

Subsequently, Harris agreed to testify truthfully if granted immunity from prosecution for his perjury. {¶16} After the trial court granted Harris immunity, Harris testified that, consistent with his earlier statement … But White cites no authority establishing that this is a correct statement of the law.

Elston v. Local Schools, Unpublished Decision (9-9-2005)

2005 Ohio 4765 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2005

may be asserted to establish nonliability: {¶ 21} "* * * {¶ 22} "(3) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the action or failure to act by the employee involved that gave rise to the claim of liability was … A plain reading of R.C. 2744.03 (A)(5) establishes that immunity is extended only to the acts of a political subdivision, not to the acts of its employees. Kiep v. Hamilton (May 19, 1997), 12th Dist. No.

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 .

Lamb v. Lamb

2011 Ohio 2970 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 2011

Pursuant to the separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution decree, Jane sought a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) allocating to her a portion of Richard’s pension benefits. … CA2007-04-105, CA2007-04-106, 2007-Ohio-6169, at ¶27 (“It is well-established that a judgment entry that is not signed by a trial judge but that bears a rubber stamp in lieu of the judge’s signature is not a final appealable

State v. Cooper

139 Ohio App. 3d 149 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 2000

These facts fail to meet Kinney’s standard of clearly calling Ashley’s competency into question. … Regardless, Bauer was an expert qualified under Evid.R. 702(B) to give her opinion regarding the trauma that Ernie Jr. would experience if he testified.

Flanagan v. Williams

87 Ohio App. 3d 768 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 1993

In order to establish malpractice, appellants must prove that the injury complained of, here the denial of their right to make an informed choice about pregnancy termination, was directly and proximately caused by a practice … We note that failure to recognize that appellants stated a cause of action in malpractice would, in effect, immunize from liability those health care providers who negligently fail to provide adequate guidance to parents

State v. Upchurch

2021 Ohio 94 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 2021

NO HARD EVIDENCES WERE SHOWN… WHILE WELL ESTABLISHED REASONABLE DOUBT WAS SHOWN. {¶10} Mr. … , however, the State must demonstrate that “(1) the radar device used was accepted as dependable for that purpose; (2) the particular unit used was in good working order; and (3) the officer who operated the unit was qualified

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

2024 Ohio 226 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2024

No. 17AP-452, 2019-Ohio-2882, ¶ 18. {¶ 13} Here, appellants’ claim for tampering with evidence is premised upon the violation of R.C. 2921.12, a crime established by statute. … Thus, the face of the complaint clearly shows this claim is time-barred by R.C. 2743.16(A).

State v. Berry

2021 Ohio 1132 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2021

-14- Case No. 14-20-05 {¶29} Corporal Stone also testified that there are “different qualifiers” for “Chinese,” including “slow lane” and “fast lane.” Jan. 16 Vol. … ‘The standard for plain error is whether, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding clearly would have been otherwise.’ State v.