Case law

State v. Victor

76 Ohio App. 3d 372 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1991

The physician is certainly more qualified than a police officer to determine the extent to which a procedure is life threatening. … Schmerber clearly justifies them under the theory of a valid warrantless search incident to arrest. In Winston v.

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.

Bowlander v. Ballard, Unpublished Decision (6-6-2003)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

Kratochvil v. Mayfield Boe, Unpublished Decision (3-20-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2003

protection and that appellants failed to establish the existence of a physical defect upon its property in order to remove the immunity. … ' nuisance claims, this court set forth that "there are two types of nuisance: an absolute nuisance (nuisance per se) or as a qualified nuisance.

Alt v. Bauer

2019 Ohio 2731 · 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

City of Riverside v. State

190 Ohio App. 3d 765 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 2010

The state agreed with the city that the dispositive issues are exclusively legal, but argued that the city failed to establish the unconstitutionality of R.C. 718.01(H)(11) under any theory. … A declaratory-judgment action is a special proceeding, and an order in a declaratory-judgment action that affects a substantial right qualifies as a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2). Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. at 22.

State ex rel. Gibbs v. Thistledown, Inc.

2014 Ohio 2731 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2014

in vocational rehabilitation three times, there is a lack of evidence to establish she refused vocational rehabilitation. … Consequently, the Injured Worker has successfully completed on-the-job training and that she became qualified to perform new types of employment.

Lambert v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

79 Ohio App. 3d 15 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1992

McCloud’s testimony qualifies the two CT scan reports, appellant told the court that since Dr. … However, Evid.R. 102 provides that the rules shall be construed to state the common law of Ohio unless the rules clearly indicate that a change is intended.” Id. at 49, 523 N.E.2d at 509 .

State v. Manns

169 Ohio App. 3d 687 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2006

“Contrastingly, the decision as to which of several competing inferences, suggested by the evidence in the record, should be preferred, is a matter in which an appellate judge is at least equally qualified, by reason and … Batson must be taken seriously, and peremptory strikes must be based on knowable facts not immunized from constitutional scrutiny. {¶ 55} The first assignment of error is sustained. *705 {¶ 56} V.

Chester/12, Ltd. v. Epiq Constr. Servs., Inc.

2023 Ohio 1886 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2023

The trial court held a case-management conference and established dates for the exchange of expert reports and the filing of dispositive motions, and the parties then proceeded with discovery. … The trial court’s order granting Chester/12 leave to supplement the motion to vacate clearly advised Chester/12 that it should supplement the motion to vacate “with evidence of the kind described in Civ.R. 56 that creates

State v. Bright

2024 Ohio 2803 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2024

In Belle, the appellant argued that the SANE nurse testified as an “expert” regarding the effect of trauma on a victim’s memory without being qualified as an expert. … Neither the State nor the court established the child’s ability to receive accurate impressions of fact or to observe acts about which she would testify; the child’s ability to recollect those impressions or observations

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.

State v. Schils

2020 Ohio 2883 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 11, 2020

reviewing court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly … Privilege is defined as 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."

Deffinbaugh v. Ohio Turnpike Commission

67 Ohio App. 3d 692 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 21, 1990

While a layperson or expert may be qualified to give an opinion as to the speed at which a vehicle is travelling, a witness is not competent to determine whether a given speed was fair, reasonable or proper since the reasonableness … No reversible error is committed so long as the law is clearly and fairly expressed to the jury and they are able to understand it as it applies to the facts in the *702 case at hand. Wagenheim v.

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Detweiler

191 Ohio App. 3d 464 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2010

By virtue of the bankruptcy, appellants are immune from personal liability on the note. {¶ 5} On September 11, 2009, appellee notified appellants by letter of the default of the note and breach of the mortgage securing the … {¶ 45} “(1) The mortgagor does not reside in the mortgaged property, {¶ 46} “(2) The mortgaged property is not within 200 miles of the mortgagee, its servicer, or a branch office of either, {¶ 47} “(3) The mortgagor has clearly

John F. Bushelman Co. v. Troxell

44 Ohio App. 2d 365 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 5, 1975

* * * planting # * grading, or filling to establish a grade * * (Emphasis added.) … If it cannot, then a principal purpose of the law is clearly not served by providing a right of lien to the demolitions laborer.

State v. Taylor

2018 Ohio 4048 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 2018

Specifically, Taylor argues that the evidence did not establish either that she knowingly caused (or attempted to cause) physical harm to R.F., or that R.F. actually suffered physical harm. See id. at 2-6. … Furthermore, we find that the trial court did not clearly lose its way in evaluating the evidence.

State v. Penn

2020 Ohio 3158 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2020

Investigator Hoch’s photographs clearly showed that the floor of C.M.’s dining room was the area of the house with the most significant charring. … Whether an expert opinion is necessary to establish the cause and the origin of a fire is dependent upon the facts of each case. Id.

Onderak v. Cleveland Metroparks, Unpublished Decision (12-7-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2000

In fact, under R.C. 2744.03 (A)(7) the legislature specifically stated that, The political subdivision . . . is entitled to any defense or immunity available at common law or established by the Revised Code." … Furthermore, the legislature clearly intended for the recreational user statutory immunity to remain applicable to political subdivisions, as evidenced by the language of R.C. 2744.03 (A)(7).

State v. Ell

2023 Ohio 4583 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2023

Being rendered unconscious, no matter how brief, qualifies as a "temporary substantial incapacity" that satisfies the definition of serious physical harm set forth under R.C. 2901.01(A)(5)(c). State v. … However, when considering the jury's verdict, the jury clearly found this testimony lacked credibility.