Case law

Daubenmire v. Sommers

156 Ohio App. 3d 322 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 2004

a prima facie case of defamation, a defendant may invoke the defense of qualified privilege. … The trial court, therefore, properly found that Wassmuth’s letters were protected by a qualified privilege.

Surf City Investors, L.L.C. v. Lofti-Fard

2025 Ohio 1252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2025

On cross-examination, the Lofti-Fards established that none of the documents from PNC establish a zero balance or draws on the HELOC. … Here, the exhibits at issue are clearly relevant to Surf City’s case, because the exhibits establish that the HELOC ended and matured; that the Lofti-Fards had defaulted on their payments; that the Lofti-Fards were aware

State, Ex Rel. Kearns v. Rindsfoos

95 Ohio App. 498 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 22, 1953

“Such right to vote cumulatively shall not be re *501 stricted or qualified by any provisions in the articles or regulations.” … It is a well established rule of statutory construction that a special statute upon the same subject matter controls over a general one. Western & Southern Indemnity Co. v.

Friedman v. Labos

23 Ohio Law. Abs. 217 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 1936

The law requires that matters at issue in civil cases be established only by a preponderance of the evidence. In charging the jury in the case of Van Allen v Industrial Commission of Ohio, 26 O.N.P. … The trial court was clearly in- error in submitting to the jury the question of punitive damages.

In Re Estate of Miller

102 Ohio App. 493 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 1955

Clearly, such wholesale admission of records would bring into the evidence papers and documents wholly extraneous and foreign to the issues involved. We find no error in this regard. … From such state of affairs it can be established with reasonable expectancy that the widow as well as the children had prospects of benefltting from monies that he may have accumulated during the years of his life expectancy

Pusey v. Greif Bros. Corp.

124 Ohio App. 3d 725 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1997

Count 3 alleged that appellee had negligently employed Youngstown Security Patrol and Eric Bator to provide security services when neither of them was qualified to provide such services. … The purpose of the rule is obvious: the granting of either motion substitutes for the function of the jury; the reasons for granting the motion should, as a matter of record, be set forth clearly.”

State Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.

160 Ohio App. 3d 741 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 5, 2005

R.C. 1.49 . {¶ 14} Section 35 , Article II , of the Ohio Constitution articulates clearly the purpose behind R.C. … The court found, at 65, 547 N.E.2d 979 : It is obvious the General Assembly did not contemplate that an employee could originally qualify under division (B) and then later also qualify under *Page 747 division (C) for the

State v. Krowiak

2022 Ohio 413 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2022

Krowiak further argues that though “[t]his subsection [of the law] clearly  7 envisages and encompasses chemical spills, bio-hazardous substances, poisons, etc.[,] [i]t does … Medina No. 08CA0004-M, 2008-Ohio-5927, ¶ 8. {¶47} In this case, the State laid a foundation qualifying Deputy Telatko as an expert.

Cooper v. Jones, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2006)

2006 Ohio 1770 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2006

Civ.R. 56(C); Dresher, supra. {¶ 15} "[U]nless a movant meets its initial burden of establishing that the nonmovant has either a complete lack of evidence or has an insufficient showing of evidence to establish the existence … Chapter 2744 political subdivision immunity. However, because the trial court did not address this issue, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. See Murphy v.

Huelsmann v. State

56 Ohio App. 2d 100 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1977

The state’s limited waiver of immunity, pursuant to R. … Marshall’s affidavit clearly established, the waters which supplied the appellants’ well were percolating in nature.

Holbeck v. Squire

26 Ohio Law. Abs. 322 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 1937

From these facts it is asserted that the grounds upon which termination is sought have been established. … In this case, if the trustee named in the-indenture for any reason is not qualified to properly administer the duties of trustee, devolving upon it, then there is another individual or association which would be as well qualified

State ex rel. Koepf v. Indus. Comm.

2019 Ohio 3789 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2019

No. 18AP-753 14 {¶ 31} Relator argues the medical evidence clearly establishes the requested losses of use, that Dr. … Lieser clearly did not consider all the medical records from Hospice, and that Dr.

State v. Herbert

231 N.E.3d 615 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2023

(Id., p. 289.) {¶75} Clearly, the foregoing statement has no probative value regarding the commission of the charged crimes. … However, based on other evidence offered at trial that clearly establishes Appellant’s guilt, we find the admission of the telephone conversation did not result in outcome-determinative prejudice.

In re I.T.

2016 Ohio 555 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2016

O’Bradovich was not qualified to testify to the admission of the report because she was not a licensed psychologist, in that she had not yet taken the examination. … Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶32} Ohio case law has established that “[t]o establish dependency under R.C. 2151.04(C), evidence must be presented ‘of conditions or environmental

State v. Conner

13 Ohio App. 3d 179 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 1983

After reviewing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the trial court issued a decision, dated August 9, 1982, which held that the vehicle being operated by defendant on February 17, 1982, qualified as a “motor vehicle” … In addition to the vehicle’s ownership, the trial court also noted that the photographs of the vehicle clearly established that the vehicle was primarily a truck which had been modified by the attachment of fertilizer spreading

State ex rel. Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co. v. Industrial Commission

160 Ohio App. 3d 741 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 5, 2005

R.C. 1.49. {¶ 14} Section 35, Article II, of the Ohio Constitution articulates clearly the purpose behind R.C. … The court found, at 65, 547 N.E.2d 979 : It is obvious the General Assembly did not contemplate that an employee could originally qualify under division (B) and then later also qualify under *747 division (C) for the same

Osborne v. Ohio Reformatory for Women

2021 Ohio 1036 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2021

Pohmer, 2015-Ohio-1229 ¶ 29, 32. {¶ 21} Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, a rebuttable presumption shifts the burden to the employer to "articulate clearly a legitimate, nondiscriminatory … Refaei at ¶ 43 ("Plaintiff's failure to establish a prima facie case of discrimination is fatal to his claim.").

State v. Hartley

2012 Ohio 4108 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2012

Trial counsel’s tactical decisions in the plea bargaining process are generally immune from ineffective assistance of counsel claims and there is no evidence in the record to reach a contrary conclusion here. … Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio- 4912, establishes a two-part test utilizing an abuse of discretion standard for appellate review of felony sentencing decisions under R.C. 2953.08(G).

Wynn v. Butler County Sheriff's Dept., Unpublished Decision (3-22-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1999

Clearly, the police departments and their employees were engaged in governmental functions. Wynn has indicated no basis for any exception to immunity. … Here, the evidence established that the appellees exercised a reasonable degree of care in verifying the suspect's identity.

Trust of Underwood v. City of Wooster

106 Ohio App. 3d 702 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 1995

It is not disputed that the trust, established by the will of the late Harley Underwood, is an “entity” which qualifies as a “business,” and therefore as a “taxpayer,” under the terms of the ordinance. … The evidence before the administrative board, namely the prima facie presumption of “business activity” contained within the ordinance, clearly supported its determination that the trust was subject to tax liability.