Case law

State v. Hess, 21646 (8-10-2007)

2007 Ohio 4099 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2007

a light most favorable to the State, clearly establishes that Hess obtained goods and services from Speedy Muffler, and sufficient evidence of the value of said goods and services was also adduced at trial. … This is clearly not a case where a consumer legally attempted to dispute a civil debt.

State v. Hairston

60 Ohio App. 2d 220 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1977

At the trial the defendant objected to testimony as to the footprints primarily on the ground that the witnesses were not qualified as experts. … The evidence was quite sufficient to establish that there had been a trespass to an unoccupied structure.

State v. Coffman

2025 Ohio 2340 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2025

These sentences were clearly within the parameters established by R.C. 2929.14.  {¶18} Furthermore, R.C. 2020.14 specifically addresses the imposition of consecutive sentences at section (C)(4): If multiple … Children who suffer unspeakable harm that is clearly exacerbated by their age, mental condition.

O'Bryant v. Catalono

2011 Ohio 1507 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2011

Although the existence of a qualified privilege is a mixed question of law and fact, it may be resolved by summary judgment. … The medical records in appellee’s possession when he confronted appellants established that on August 19, 2008, Addie filled a prescription for 270 extra strength Vicodin from her primary care physician.

State v. Branch

2026 Ohio 664 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2026

. {¶4} The evidence at trial established the following. … This testimony alone was sufficient to establish cohabitation.

State v. Scott

2023 Ohio 1184 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2023

In reviewing the Reynolds elements, Scott's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment qualified as a petition for postconviction relief, regardless of the title of the motion. … Scott filed his PCR petition approximately ten years later, clearly outside the required time period. {¶16} In accordance with R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), a court may entertain an untimely PCR petition if the petitioner

Oye v. Ohio State Univ., Unpublished Decision (11-6-2003)

2003 Ohio 5944 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2003

Shearer (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 284 , discussed the framework for establishing personal immunity for state employees: If the Court of Claims determines that the employee was acting within the scope of employment, in furtherance … These cases clearly indicate that an R.C. 9.86 immunity analysis requires more than merely determining whether a state employee is "motivated by actual malice or other such reasons giving rise to punitive damages." {¶ 12}

Cleveland v. Fuller

2023 Ohio 1669 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 18, 2023

“Consequently, the statutes governing ‘restitution,’” including R.C. 2929.28(A)(1), “are still used to determine which losses qualify for restitution.” Id. … losses qualify for restitution.” Id. at ¶ 12.

Bowlander v. Ballard, Unpublished Decision (6-6-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2003

Because we conclude that appellants failed to establish any triable issues as to their claim of negligent entrustment and appellee firefighter and his employer township were entitled to statutory immunity, we affirm. {¶ 2 … Given these uncontroverted facts, Ballard and Troy Township qualify for statutory immunity absent willful or wanton behavior. {¶ 25} The terms "willful" and "wanton" are substantially similar in meaning and frequently used

State v. Boswell

2019 Ohio 2949 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2019

Subsections (B) and (C) establish the factors indicating whether the offender’s conduct is more serious or less serious than conduct normally constituting the offense. … proceeding clearly would have been different. State v.

Griffin v. Springfield Regional Med. Ctr.

2013 Ohio 1819 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 3, 2013

Discriminatory intent may be established indirectly by the four-part analysis set forth in Barker v. … In recommending that plaintiff be selected for the RIF, Klocke clearly indicated that plaintiff was selected because he was “eligible for (the) retirement window.”

State v. Stuber

71 Ohio App. 3d 86 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 1990

Such meets the test for finding a lesser included offense established in State v. … Clearly the judgment of conviction of disorderly conduct was not enhanced or altered in any way prejudicial to appellant. The fourth assignment of error is also overruled.

Newman v. East Ohio Gas Co.

83 Ohio App. 214 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 1947

whenever at least one customer on an. average of each additional one hundred (100) feet of pipe in the street or streets in which the extension is-to be run shall first agree in writing to take a supply of gas at the then established … On April 2, 1947, Newman was notified by The East Ohio Gas Company that, unless he removed the conversion burner, or qualified as a medical hardship case within rule 26, the company would discontinue all service to him.

McQueen v. Amazon

2022 Ohio 3491 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2022

For the reason that the plaintiffs have not established that the records of McQueen’s medical diagnosis meet the requirements to qualify as an exception pursuant to Rule 803(6) or R.C. 3701.75, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits … The exhibits clearly show that the plaintiffs are calculating their damages as to the light fixture based on internet searches.

Alt v. Bauer

2019 Ohio 2778 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2019

Richland No. 15CA56, 2015-Ohio-4444, ¶ 13: It is well established the party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that no issues of material fact exist for trial. … Hamilton, at ¶ 15–17, 297 N.E.2d 105. {¶24} Appellant specifically maintains that appellee Roger Bauer clearly and intentionally failed to comply with the Jackson Township Zoning Regulations before

State v. Hatcher

2013 Ohio 445 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2013

Rouse correctly recognizes that “[i]n Vega, the court clearly endorsed the legislative delegation of R.C. 3701.143,” but then goes on to state that Vega establishes a “rebuttable presumption of reliability of R.C. 4511.19 … Thus, the central issue as presented in the case before us, does the Intoxilyzer 8000 qualify as “proper equipment”? The answer is “yes” if it is generally reliable and “no” if it is not.

Alves v. Baldaia

14 Ohio App. 3d 187 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 1984

Appellant Schaller maintains that the separation agreement’s specific reference to the promissory note establishes that the transfer was an assignment only, not a negotiation of the instrument. … Under R.C. 1303.38 (UCC 3-402), “[unless the instrument clearly indicates that a signature is made in some other capacity it is an indorsement.” (Emphasis added.)

State v. Black

181 Ohio App. 3d 821 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2009

An error qualifies as “plain error” only if it is obvious that but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding clearly would have been otherwise. State v. Macias, Darke App. … It is apparent from the record before us that the state clearly demonstrated that any evidence it presented that sought to establish that Black stole the vehicle was adduced in order to show that Black was aware that the

State v. Dabney

2023 Ohio 28 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 2023

I believe that her driving and the length of the chase that occurred does qualify and it created a substantial risk of serious physical harm either to persons or property * * * they deployed stop sticks * … S-20-037, 2021-Ohio-3380, ¶ 39, “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate felony sentence review * * * [It] establishes that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed sentence if it clearly

David v. David, 2007-A-0038 (12-21-2007)

2007 Ohio 6942 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2007

The reason is *Page 3 that the condominium was clearly the Plaintiffs separate property, acquired by him prior to the date of marriage. … Further, any "[p]assive income and appreciation acquired from separate property by one spouse during the marriage" would also qualify as separate property. R.C. 3105.171 (A)(6)(a)(iii).