Case law

Chase v. Westfield Insurance Company, Unpublished Decision (10-10-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2002

The Court explained the exception as follows: {¶ 33} "The city claimed that it was immune from liability pursuant to R.C. … The term `general' is very clearly used not to modify the term `employed,' but to modify `highway transportation.'

State v. Karpovitch

2025 Ohio 4323 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2025

Under this court’s reading, the statute clearly makes no distinction at all between sentences imposed in a single case or in multiple cases. … term on a qualifying felony in a different case.”

Holman v. Ohio Department of Human Services

143 Ohio App. 3d 44 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 2001

Rather than summarily dismissing appellant’s request as purely cosmetic surgery, ODHS went on to make a factual determination as to whether or not the abdominoplasty would qualify for coverage as a medical necessity. … ODHS argues that the burden of establishing medical necessity clearly falls upon the party requesting authorization, and, therefore, appellant failed to meet this burden.

Buzzard v. Public Employees Retirement System

139 Ohio App. 3d 632 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 9, 2000

Again, Civ.R. 56(C) clearly provides that “[n]o evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule.” … A “beneficiary,” however, is defined as “the estate or a person or persons who, as the result of the death of a member, contributor, or retirant, qualify for or are receiving some right or benefit under this chapter.”

State v. Valladares

2018 Ohio 1250 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 2018

IV, § 6 of the Ohio Constitution for a person elected or appointed to judicial office by restrictively applying that limitation to the temporary appointment of a qualified person to the office of a municipal judge under … In general, even “debatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54, 2004-Ohio-6235, ¶ 146.

State v. Medina

2022 Ohio 1070 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2022

The Ohio Supreme Court has “already established that a failure by a trial court to notify appointed appellate counsel of his appointment qualifies as a denial of the defendant’s right to counsel[.]” Id. at 581. … Therefore, Medina’s petition is clearly untimely.

In Re Proceedings to Compel McAuley

63 Ohio App. 2d 5 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1979

preliminary hearing, investigate the case, establish the appellant’s innocence at the preliminary hearing, and prove that Mafia chieftains rather than appellant, killed Julius Petro. … McAuley is a necessary and material witness in the case as he *8 possesses information that is helpful and essential to the defense and clearly exculpatory of the defendant.

Switka v. Youngstown, Unpublished Decision (9-1-2006)

2006 Ohio 4617 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2006

Appellants allege that Moody was dangerous based on his violent tendencies and his repeated on-the-job horseplay. {¶ 39} In order to establish a successful employer intentional tort action, an employee must establish: {¶ … There was no evidence establishing that Moody created a dangerous condition at the City of Youngstown's Street Department and there was a lack of evidence tending to establish that the City knew that a co-worker was substantially

State v. Wilson, Ca2006-01-007 (5-14-2007)

2007 Ohio 2298 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 14, 2007

Ehlers was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic chemistry and in the manufacture of *Page 8 methamphetamine. … We do not conclude that the jury clearly lost its way in this case.

Immediate Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. v. Superior Metal Products, Inc.

134 Ohio App. 3d 748 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1999

As a means of providing health benefits to its employees, Superior Metal established a benefits trust, defendant Superior Trust. … State law clearly governs contracts, and we agree with the plaintiffs contention that preemption in this case “would grant ERISA plans immunity from their creditors, and enable such plans to unilaterally abrogate their written

Swanton Township Board of Trustees v. Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority

66 Ohio App. 3d 555 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1990

The foregoing authorities clearly establish that if an airport is a public utility, it is exempt from township zoning regulations. … Thus, R.C. 4563.03 does not permit an airport zoning board to establish zoning regulations on airport land.

Durbin v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

83 Ohio App. 3d 693 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1992

Ohio law has long provided officers of the court with civil immunity when the officers are merely complying with an order of the court which appears valid on its face. Wholesale Elec. & Supply, Inc. v. … The patrolman was clearly within the terms of the first part of the language of R.C. 5503.02 quoted above. No order of the Governor was needed to allow arrest in this case.”

State v. Standen

173 Ohio App. 3d 324 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2007

Possession {¶ 11} Possession refers to the control of property “ ‘for one’s use and enjoyment, either as owner or as the proprietor of a qualified right in it, either held personally or by another who exercises it in one’ … Appellee clearly has a possessory interest in the money at issue.

McCafferty v. Cleveland Board of Education

133 Ohio App. 3d 692 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 27, 1999

The court held: “To establish a prima facie claim of handicap discrimination to defeat a motion for summary judgment, Csejpes must present evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether (1) she … The appellant also argues that her replacement teacher in the Title I reading program was younger and less qualified.

State v. Hill

2019 Ohio 698 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2019

(Emphasis added.) {¶16} In determining whether the state presented sufficient evidence establishing Hill as the suspect, we note that the identity may be established by the use of direct or circumstantial evidence … He had possession and control over the funds so he qualifies as a “person authorized to give consent” relative to the cash deposits within the meaning of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1).

State v. Hancock

2010 Ohio 4854 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2010

of a controlled substance if a foundation for this testimony is first established.” {¶44} The Court made this holding in a case where it ultimately found that the state did not establish a foundation for the lay witnesses … And in another footnote, the court questioned whether it was even necessary for the trial court to qualify the detective as an expert, since the McKee Court had approved the use of lay witness testimony to establish the identity

Reeves v. Reeves

2016 Ohio 4590 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2016

The trial court then established the specific details of its division as follows, "Payment to [Valerie] shall commence when [Joseph] begins to receive retirement benefits or when he has 30 years of service credit toward … Having recognized that issue clearly, the trial court further noted that once Joseph earned 30 years of service credit, the disability payments would convert into retirement for the purposes of property division.

State v. Snowden

49 Ohio App. 2d 7 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1976

It is difficult to conceive how the twin questions of relevancy and materiality necessary to qualify this kind of evidence could ever be satisfied out of the mouth of the defendant without insoluble problems intervening. … Other forced admissions of acts of “breaking and entering” and “joy riding” were clearly irrelevant.

State v. Hall, Ca2007-02-005 (4-21-2008)

2008 Ohio 1889 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2008

Hand at ¶ 100. {¶ 49} We are not convinced that every instance cited by appellant in her brief qualifies as hearsay. … reference to the bulk amount jury instruction, but those objections did not involve whether the reference chart in the "Drug Laws of Ohio" publication was certified, authenticated, or explained by a physician. {¶ 72} It is well-established

Langdon v. Board of Liquor Control

112 Ohio App. 232 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1959

“The rule permitting opinions of expert witnesses to be given in evidence is chiefly applicable to cases in which, from their very nature, the facts disconnected from such opinions cannot be clearly presented to the jury … It is interesting to compare the general rule permitting a lay witness to testify upon the question of intoxication. “ * * * It is well established, therefore, that a witness who has had opportunity to observe the facts upon