Case law

Young v. New Southgate Lanes, 88552 (6-14-2007)

2007 Ohio 2923 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2007

It is clear that the recreational use immunity does not apply. Assumption of the Risk {¶ 30} Appellees argue in support of their motion for summary judgment that appellant assumed the risk of injury. We disagree. … Clearly, there are still genuine issues of material fact as to whether the danger was open and obvious.

Schmidt v. Newtown

2012 Ohio 890 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2012

Similarly, 42 U.S.C. 1982 and 1983 require the existence of a property right, or the existence of some other right, privilege, or immunity. … Thus, Schmidt qualifies as an exempt executive employee under the FLSA. Schmidt has not presented any evidence that he had been promised payment for compensatory time from the Village.

State v. Glass

2025 Ohio 4670 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 2025

Glass fractured multiple bones in Johnson’s face, which qualifies as serious physical harm. See Montgomery, 2015-Ohio-2158, at ¶ 13 (8th Dist.). … (“‘Deadly force’ merely describes the ‘seriousness’ of the provocation required for a defendant to qualify for mitigation” and is “not an element of the offense.”).

Westerville City Schools Bd. of Edn v. Harris

2025 Ohio 4559 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2025

First, R.C. 5715.27 generally establishes the procedure for filing an application for property tax exemption. … 17 period, the BTA properly held that the BOE’s reading of the statutes would improperly limit the Tax Commissioner’s discretion in a way not clearly

State v. Malvasi

203 N.E.3d 823 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2022

(Tr. 734-740). {¶43} As the state points out, the expert’s qualifications in accident reconstruction were established to a greater degree than those in a prior case where we found an officer was properly qualified … Clearly, flight from a crash scene qualifies as a type of flight. State v. Miller, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 13 MA 12, 2014- Ohio-2936, ¶ 139 (fleeing the scene instead of calling for ambulance), citing State v.

Abrams v. Siegel

166 Ohio App. 3d 230 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2006

The appellee failed to proffer sufficient evidence to establish damages to a reasonable degree of certainty. {¶ 61} Dr. Siegel’s only argument under this assignment of error is that Mr. … Abrams requested attorney fees in his complaint. “ ‘It is well established that when attorney fees are requested in the complaint, there is no final appealable order until those fees have been addressed by the trial court

Pressler v. City of Franklin

90 N.E.3d 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2017

. {¶ 6} The three defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that they were immune from suit. … Exception to Immunity {¶ 10} R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) provides a general grant of immunity to an employee of a political subdivision unless one of the following applies: (1) the employee's acts or omissions were manifestly

State v. Dillard

2018 Ohio 4842 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2018

the trier of fact, but must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly … Furthermore, the Scruggs court used the same "on or about" qualifier as the state did herein.

Lu v. Univ. of Dayton

2025 Ohio 1948 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 30, 2025

However, this evidence was clearly not new, since it was in Lu’s possession. … No evidence was presented to indicate that Muratore did not qualify per this definition.

Colwell v. Bob & Shawn Ents., L.L.C.

2026 Ohio 976 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2026

Strong winds, such as 50 to 80 miles per hour winds, or winds with the strength of a "weak tornado", may qualify as an act of God that bars a plaintiff's negligence claim as a matter of law. … That is, the Saloon did not establish a lack of a genuine issue of material fact that the wind conditions satisfied the prerequisites to qualify as an act of God at this stage of the proceedings. {¶ 41} Because

State ex rel. Minnich v. Crabill

22 Ohio Law. Abs. 646 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 1936

The petition also sets forth that the certificate so tendered was duly verified and properly presented and that all the candidates are in fact qualified as such. … In the case of State v Ridgway, 73 Oh St 31, on page 39, Judge Price following the opinion of the court, makes the following observation: “A long established and uniform practice is an authority of but little, if any, less

State v. Myers, 21612 (5-25-2007)

2007 Ohio 2602 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 25, 2007

. {¶ 8} In reviewing this issue, we note that statutes are afforded a strong presumption of constitutionality, and the challenger must establish that the statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. … The General Assembly clearly wished to *Page 5 deter those detainees from violating their detention status and running the risk of criminal recidivism or interrupting their orderly rehabilitation and return to the law-abiding

Hall v. Mem. Hosp. of Union Cty., Unpublished Decision (9-5-2006)

2006 Ohio 4552 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2006

. {¶ 17} In effect, our precedent has established a tiered manner of review for determining whether we have jurisdiction to review the orders of a trial court's judgment entry. … Clearly, the trial court's summary judgment orders on the specific claims in the complaint are not final and appealable. See R.C. 2505.02 ; Civ.R. 54(B).

Byrd v. Kirby, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2005)

2005 Ohio 1261 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2005

The trial court found that Kirby was entitled to personal immunity under R.C. 2744.03 (A)(6)(b) because appellants had presented no evidence to controvert appellees' evidence establishing that his actions were not wanton … absence of willful or wanton misconduct as defined in R.C. 2744.02 , which we have concluded establishes the city's immunity in this case, also meets the standard for personal immunity under R.C. 2744.03 (A)(6)(b), which

Bellinger v. Weight Watchers Gourmet Food Co.

142 Ohio App. 3d 708 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 7, 2001

Upon review, we find that appellant failed to establish that Weight Watchers was the “unusual employer” who discriminated against white males. … The Weight Watchers employee handbook clearly provided that employees involved in an accident requiring medical attention will be tested for drugs and alcohol.

Kaplan v. Hammond

246 N.E.3d 1072 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2024

Clearly, then, whether Feick was at fault for failing to complete the fourth inspection would affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law and constitutes a material fact in this litigation. … Coulter was not qualified to provide his opinion. {¶ 48} Second, we find that Mr.

State v. Blackshear

2019 Ohio 655 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2019

the skill and experience of a lawyer in order competently and intelligently to choose self- representation, [they] should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self- representation, so that the record will establish … Although Bey clearly and unequivocally asserted his right to represent himself at trial, the trial court had a corresponding “serious and weighty responsibility” to ensure that Bey was making that choice “with eyes open

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission

58 Ohio App. 3d 20 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1989

Code 4112-5-08(D)(3)(a) provides that the employer has the burden of establishing the manner and degree to which such occupational hazards would be increased. … As stated in Hazlett, supra, “where chemical dependency adversely affects job performance, an employer is clearly within its rights to discharge the employee.” Id. at 281 .

Routzong, Exrx. v. Minsterman

94 Ohio App. 281 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 1952

Those cases establish the rule that conflicting provisions of a will should be reconciled so as to conform to the manifest general intent, and it is only in cases where such provisions are wholly and absolutely repugnant … However, the words ‘to do with *290 and use as she see best fit to do,’ do not clearly and definitely show an intention to devise a fee simple estate.

Morgan v. Beigel

2011 Ohio 406 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2011

Mayer at 13. {¶11} Clearly, Beigel’s actions in the one case alleged as the basis for Morgan’s complaint do not fall within the description of the statute’s purpose as stated above. … As stated above, Beigel’s actions in the one case that was the subject of Morgan’s Complaint does not qualify as habitual and persistent litigation.