Case law

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.

S. Euclid v. Freeman

2026 Ohio 2406 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2026

Taken together, we cannot say that the trial court clearly lost its way in returning its verdicts of guilt with respect to failure to stop after an accident and improper passing. … It has been well established that estimates introduced for the purpose of establishing damages is hearsay. Morgan v. Keenan, 2026-Ohio-1034, ¶ 84 (7th Dist.)

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

State v. Patterson

2026 Ohio 1768 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 14, 2026

Specifically, he claims that the evidence did not establish that he knew the Glock 19X was a “dangerous ordnance.” … (“If the weapon is a dangerous ordnance, it no longer qualifies as a ‘handgun’ for purposes of conviction under [2923.12](A)(2).”).

State v. Courtney

2014 Ohio 1659 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2014

We disagree. {¶ 17} R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a) instructs a sentencing court to sentence an offender who pleads guilty to a felony of the fourth or fifth degree that is not an offense of violence or a qualifying assault … The record establishes that Courtney was in a position that required higher than normal reliability.

Brown v. Wood County Board of Elections

79 Ohio App. 3d 474 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1992

The facts establish that relators are Edmund G. … Thereafter, the delegate relators circulated petition papers in Wood, Seneca, Ottawa, Sandusky, and Williams Counties in an effort to secure the requisite fifty signatures of qualified Democratic Party electors.

Galloway v. Lucas County Children Services Board

77 Ohio App. 3d 61 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 1991

Farrar qualify under Evid.R. 803(4) and, therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting that testimony over appellant’s objection. … While the Juvenile Rules were enacted pursuant to Article IV of the Ohio Constitution to establish a uniform procedure for the courts of Ohio, they do not affect the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts as established by statute

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).

K & S Realty Co. v. Rosen

47 Ohio Law. Abs. 316 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1946

Counsel for plaintiff, by way of brief, contend that the opening remarks of defendant’s counsel showed clearly that no lease had ever been effected; that defendants had not agreed to or accepted any term of lease; that a … in the opinion of counsel, the proofs at his command will establish.”

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.

State v. Janson

2020 Ohio 4525 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2020

It indicates clearly to the jury that the party having the burden of proof will be entitled to their verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find the greater amount of credible evidence sustains … the issue which is to be established before them.

Jenkins v. City of Gallipolis

128 Ohio App. 3d 376 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1998

Because the trial court correctly stated the law *384 in its earlier entry, JDN and the city reason that the trial court clearly did not misinterpret the law before applying it to Jenkins. … The fact that Jenkins’s expert was unquestionably qualified as a real estate appraisal expert does not render him a traffic expert as well.

State v. Maxwell

2026 Ohio 2411 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2026

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.” State v. … Considering this evidence, we cannot find that the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Beard v. State

64 Ohio Law. Abs. 532 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1951

At page 165 Chief Justice Marshall says: “It was the undoubted legislative intent that all persons guilty of murder in the first degree, whether so found by the verdict of a jury or established by confession in open court … It is our conclusion that the finding and filing of the indictment on October 2, 1928, was sufficient to qualify the charges against the petitioner as a pending prosecution within the wording of this section.

State v. McDowell, 2008-Ca-0110 (3-16-2009)

2009 Ohio 1193 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2009

Rather our holding was clearly and unequivocally that appellant's attempt to utilize Civ. R. 60(B) to attack his original sentence, when no appeal from that sentence had been properly filed, was improper. … "Neither constitutional principles nor the doctrine of res judicata requires that sentencing become a game in which a wrong move by the judge or prosecutor means immunity for a defendant. See Bozza v.

State v. Hinkston

2015 Ohio 3851 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2015

In later cases, the court pinpointed what qualified as “testimonial statements.” … Thus, he “must establish both that misconduct occurred and that but for the misconduct, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” See State v.

Baker v. Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation

140 Ohio App. 3d 766 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2000

Without question, the occupational accident clearly had profound debilitating effects upon Mark Baker’s mental and emotional state. … Clearly the “bias” that the Administrator wished to show was an inclination on the part of Anita Baker to cheat the bureau.

State v. Fields

27 Ohio Law. Abs. 662 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 1938

of the State óf Ohio is in contravention of the Constitution of the United States in that it imposes an unlawful restraint upon trade and interstate commerce and denies to citizens equal protection of the laws and grants immunities … is unable to see from the transcript just how the Tax Commission arrived at the purchase price and the recital by the Justice in his transcript of what was testified to fails to disclose that such purchase price was ever established

State v. Jaeger

2018 Ohio 2994 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2018

Jaeger later told a detective that he had knowledge of the workings of the entire operation and that, in exchange for immunity, he could tell the detective the identities of all of the individuals involved in the offenses … He also testified that the two men worked together in the same way during each break-in. {¶15} The evidence establishing that Mr.