Case law

State, Ex Rel. Ohio Motorists Assn. v. Masten

8 Ohio App. 3d 123 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1982

West 117th Street is clearly a “highway” within the meaning of R.C. 4511.01(BB), supra, and the “Stop Here on Red” sign and stop line are clearly “traffic control devices” under R.C. 4511.01(QQ), supra. … R.C. 4511.11 merely establishes guidelines for the village of Linndale to follow in regulating traffic by means of traffic control devices.

State v. Leet

2020 Ohio 4592 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2020

Under the law, qualifying first- and second-degree felonies committed on or after March 22, 2019 are now subject to the imposition of indefinite sentences. … . {¶ 9} Additionally, the law establishes a presumptive release date at the end of the minimum term. R.C. 2967.271(B).

Graham v. Lake Cty. Jobs & Family Servs. & Child Support Enforcement Agency

230 N.E.3d 584 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2023

If the public office withholds a record on the basis of a statutory exception, the “burden of production” is on the public office to plead and prove facts clearly establishing the applicability of the exemption. Id. … As appellant withheld the requested records on the basis of a statutory exception, appellant bears the burden of production to prove facts clearly establishing the applicability of the exemption.

State v. Eiler

2016 Ohio 224 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 2016

Kazmierczak (2000), 461 Mich. 411, 413, 605 N.W.2d 667, 668 (“the smell of marijuana alone by a person qualified to know the odor may establish probable cause to search a motor vehicle”); Mendez v. … Moore (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 47, if the smell of marijuana, as detected by a person who is qualified to recognize the odor, is the sole circumstance, this is sufficient to establish probable cause.

Fleming v. Vanguard Sentinel Joint, Unpublished Decision (4-25-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2003

We must now determine whether appellee is entitled to an additional defense or qualified immunity under R.C. 2744.03 . {¶ 14} R.C. 2744.03 (A) provides a mechanism by which a defendant may "regain" its immunity status when … may be asserted to establish nonliability: {¶ 16} "* * * {¶ 17} "(5) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the injury, death, or loss to persons or property resulted from the exercise of judgment or discretion

Jenkins v. Jenkins

2015 Ohio 5484 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2015

Michael had the burden to establish that they could be traced to separate property so as to constitute his separate property. … Michael has not established that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the pistol to Carrie. Lawrence App.

Weidemann v. Weidemann

2014 Ohio 1462 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2014

Pertinent to this appeal, the trial court held that the evidence clearly supported the magistrate's finding that Tracy was in contempt for failure to reimburse Scott for her portion of the medical bills. … Furthermore, she admits she knowingly did not reimburse Scott for qualifying medical expenses for treatment of their child. Therefore, Tracy concedes the prima facie grounds for contempt.

Joyce-Couch v. Desilva

77 Ohio App. 3d 278 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 1991

Nothing in Evid.R. 601(D) prevents a qualified expert from testifying as to causation and damages in a malpractice case. … It is well established that a trial court should confine its instructions to the issues raised by the pleadings and the evidence. Becker v. Lake Cty. Mem. Hosp.

State v. Flores-Lopez

2016 Ohio 7687 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2016

Gunner was qualified to detect heroin, methamphetamines, marijuana, crack, cocaine, mushrooms, and ecstasy. … Thus, when one is the driver of a car in which drugs are within easy access of the driver, constructive possession may be established.” State v. Fry, 4th Dist.

Reck v. Reck

37 Ohio Law. Abs. 217 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 1942

It is further conclusively established through the evidence that all debts against the estate of Walter E. … Suffice it to say that the authorities very clearly establish the principle that under a state of facts such as is presented in the instant case, the plaintiff may not recover.

State v. Caudill

2025 Ohio 787 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2025

“To qualify for plain-error relief, the appellant must establish: (1) occurrence of an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule; (2) the error was plain, i.e., it was an obvious defect in the trial proceedings; and ( … Therefore, we review the issue only for plain error. {¶44} Caudill has not established that she qualifies for plain-error relief.

Booth v. Copeco, Inc.

2017 Ohio 2897 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 19, 2017

.  {¶ 9} According to Frank’s affidavit, because there was no gross profit on the LMHA transaction, Booth did not qualify for a commission. … Booth’s vague, speculative allegations are insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Gallagher v. O’Connor, 2d Dist.

State v. Vinson

70 Ohio App. 3d 391 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1990

To establish such a case, the defendant must satisfy three requirements. … The victim's statement itself does not qualify as a dying declaration since Frazier was not aware of his impending death when treated and released. Evid. R. 804(B) (2).

Holt v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Health Center

69 Ohio App. 3d 439 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 1990

First, Bylaw 3.2.3 is clearly a nondiscrimination clause analogous to R.C. 3701.351, and for the same reasons as the statute is not applicable to the case at bar. … Contrary to Holt’s assertions, Good Samaritan need not hold a hearing to establish that its decision to award the exclusive contract to S.E.C. instead of WCOEMA was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious.

State v. Reyes

2015 Ohio 5344 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2015

We have already established that a failure by a trial court to notify 3 appointed appellate counsel of his appointment qualifies as a denial of the defendant’s right to … Despite this, he waited two more years, i.e., February 2015, to file his petition to vacate the existing sentencing judgment. {¶15} Given the 180 day-time limit in R.C. 2953.21(A)(2), the Ohio General Assembly clearly

Pylypiv v. Parma, Unpublished Decision (12-1-2005)

2005 Ohio 6364 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2005

However, it is generally true that, where an original act is wrongful or negligent and in natural and continuous sequence produces a result which would not have taken place without the act, proximate cause is established, … These facts clearly establish that the police officer, although in pursuit of the decedent, was at such a distance that he did not proximately cause the decedent to crash his motorcycle." {¶ 34} In addition to the facts previously

State ex rel. David v. Indus. Comm.

2024 Ohio 2790 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2024

“So long as that causal link is established, and he or she is otherwise qualified, the claimant is eligible for TTD compensation.” Id. … “So long as that causal link is established, and [the claimant] is otherwise qualified, the claimant is eligible for TTD compensation.”

Mentor Lagoons, Inc. v. Teague

71 Ohio App. 3d 719 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1991

Nozik further stated that as a result of his experience in handling this type of action, he was uniquely qualified to represent the companies. … Clearly a court cannot knowingly participate in what it perceives to be a breach of an ethical or disciplinary violation. Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 1; Canon 3.

State v. Detienne

2017 Ohio 9105 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2017

Cuyahoga No. 101365, 2015-Ohio-597, ¶ 43. {¶ 19} For these reasons, we cannot say that the jury clearly lost its way or created a manifest miscarriage of justice in rejecting Detienne’s affirmative defense and … Under R.C. 2925.51(A), in any criminal prosecution for a violation of Chapters 2925 (“Drug Offenses”) or 3719 (“Controlled Substances”), a qualifying laboratory report3 stating that the substance that is the basis of the

Omega Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Koverman

2016 Ohio 2961 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 13, 2016

An analogous issue arises in tort cases involving injuries caused by governmental employees, who are generally immune from liability, unless one of the exceptions to immunity applies. … In those cases, when the governmental defendant moves for summary judgment to dismiss the injured plaintiff’s claims, the burden is on the movant to establish not only facts triggering the general immunity rule, but also