Case law

McKinney v. Omni Die Casting, Inc.

91 N.E.3d 124 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 22, 2017

However, in Gehm, the Supreme Court held specifically that “a motion to intervene for the purpose of establishing a record in a separate action is not an ancillary proceeding to an action and does not qualify as a provisional … Id. {¶37} The court held in Mills that, “the statute is unambiguous and the terms are clearly defined within the statute.

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.

State v. Brownfield

2013 Ohio 1947 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 13, 2013

Essentially, the common meaning of "plainly audible" is clearly or distinctly heard. … As a result, we find that the ordinance is content-neutral. {¶ 23} Furthermore, the ordinance meets the remainder of the requirements to qualify as a permissible time, place, and manner restriction.

Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted

97 N.E.3d 1083 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2017

The party challenging the constitutionality of the statute bears the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute and the constitutional provisions are clearly incompatible. … Under this system, only the two major parties qualified as political parties.

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

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. Taylor

2020 Ohio 5079 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2020

In Franklin, this court reiterated the well-established principle that the smell of marijuana, alone, by a person qualified to recognize the odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause to search a motor … As clearly established by the United States Supreme Court, once Officers Ribich and Sirl had probable cause to conduct a search of Taylor’s vehicle, they were justified in searching the passenger compartment “of the vehicle

Kohnle v. Carey

80 Ohio App. 23 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 1, 1946

The doctrine is well established that a sudden and unexpected entry into the path of travel will take the case out of the assured clear distance statute. … Jur., 473, provides: “It is well established in Ohio that the owner of personal property, because of such ownership, has a sufficient knowledge of its value to be qualified to give an opinion thereon which will be some evidence

State v. Parker

2022 Ohio 1164 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2022

Based on the authority established by this district’s en banc holding in State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. … “Under the basic principles of due process, a statute is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” State v.

State v. Newrones

2012 Ohio 710 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 2012

Appellant alleges that the evidence was sufficient only to prove that $500.00 in merchandise had been stolen, while the statute under which he was convicted requires a minimum of $1,000.00 in stolen goods to qualify as … The trial court questioned the State, “if this matter had gone to trial, what factual basis would there be for establishing this charge of theft?”

Hicks v. Allen, Unpublished Decision (2-16-2007)

2007 Ohio 693 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2007

The trial court erred in determining that [a]ppellees are protected by the sovereign immunity statute when the facts of the case reflect that exceptions to the application of sovereign immunity clearly apply." {¶ 8} We review … Id. {¶ 43} Under the circumstances, we hold the political subdivision is immune from liability because Allen was using his discretion with respect to establishing a policy or plan on how to manage the dog's relief habits.

State v. Garcia

2022 Ohio 707 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2022

“On March 22, 2019, the Ohio legislature enacted the Reagan Tokes Act, which changed the terms of felony sentencing for qualifying felonies of the first or second degree. See R.C. 2929.14.” State v. Young, 8th Dist. … “It is well established that “‘the question of the constitutionality of a statute must generally be raised at the first opportunity and, in a criminal prosecution, this means in the trial court.”’” State v.

State v. Rosebrook

2017 Ohio 9261 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2017

A manifest-weight challenge requires us to consider the entire record, including the credibility of the witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and any reasonable inferences, and determine whether ‘“the [panel] clearly … However, the actual exchange of money or payment was not required to establish that Rosebrook solicited or conspired with South to kill Daniel Carl Ott.

Globe Mutual Casualty Co. v. Teague

14 Ohio App. 2d 186 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 1967

Applicable parts are as follows: “Any person whose license or permit is suspended * * * is not eligible # * * to have his license returned, until he has been examined * * * and has been found by the registrar to be qualified … refers to and establishes the distinct identity of the contract to furnish by certification financial responsibility coverage.

State v. Mayes

2026 Ohio 1081 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2026

. {¶ 25} The trial court then evaluated the nontestimonial statements to determine whether they qualify as excited utterances. Citing State v. … A perpetrator’s identity may be established by the testimony of only one witness, and here, C.W. identified Mayes. Mayes is wrong that no law enforcement immediately responded to the scene of the shooting.

Mahoning Associates, Inc. v. Ohio National Life Ins.

29 Ohio App. 2d 282 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1971

The evidence established that no premium was paid, and no policy was ever issued by defendant on the life of Mr. Rosenberg. … The evidence clearly indicates that Mr. Rosenberg could not have qualified for standard rates.

State v. Marshall

103 N.E.3d 61 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2017

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 … -6-  Madison CA2016-11-031 first assignment of error. {¶ 23} Assignment of Error No. 2: {¶ 24} THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT QUALIFY

Ohio Logos v. Catawba Island Township, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2002

. {¶ 2} The dispute centers on the installation of road signs in Catawba Island Township pursuant to R.C. 4511.101 through 4511.106 , which established a program to place tourist-oriented directional signs ("TODS") along … . {¶ 15} In addition, we find no error in the trial court's determination that the TOD signs qualified for the exemption in the local zoning regulation for "governmental" signs.

Saul v. Jefferson Twp. Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

2012 Ohio 1574 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2012

But the Ohio Supreme Court has clearly and unambiguously concluded otherwise. In Naylor v. Cardinal Local School Dist. … Lake No. 95-L-014, 1996 WL 648743, *8 (July 12, 1996), the Eleventh District concluded that “once a procedural violation of R.C. 3319.111 has been established, a court of common pleas is required to reinstate the teacher

State v. Rhines

2012 Ohio 3393 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2012

Plain error does not exist unless but for the error the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise. State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 552 N.E.2d 913 (1990); State v. … The absence of Rhines’ DNA does not establish who was operating the vehicle.