Case law

State v. Frye, 2006ca00363 (12-26-2007)

2007 Ohio 7111 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2007

THE TRIAL COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT ALLOWED EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM A WITNESS NOT QUALIFIED TO PRESENT SAID TESTIMONY. {¶ 16} "III. … The defendant in Farris clearly was in custody.

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.

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

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).

Miller v. Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission

85 Ohio App. 3d 701 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1993

It implies a decision without a reasonable basis or one that is clearly wrong. Mosholder, supra, 75 Ohio App.3d at 136 , 598 N.E.2d at 1272 . … The parties do not dispute that appellant’s alcoholism can qualify as a handicap under the federal Rehabilitation Act.

State v. Stallworth

2026 Ohio 2242 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 2026

However, immediately prior to making this statement, the trial court made the qualifying remark that evidence of the buy money “in and of itself isn’t that, but taken together with all the other factors, it can’t be overlooked … Nowhere in the record does the trial court state such evidence was considered for the purposes of establishing his character.

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.

State v. Al-Dor

2013 Ohio 5731 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2013

It is also difficult to imagine that the act of forcible rape would not qualify as terrorizing or inducing terror in the victim, thereby satisfying that element of the kidnapping offense. … Conclusion {¶21} Appellant’s convictions for rape and kidnapping were established beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Skorvanek

182 Ohio App. 3d 615 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2009

Accordingly, while DiPietro was qualified to testify about the contents of Skorvanek’s pill bottle, she was not qualified to testify about the daily maximum dose amount of those substances. … POSSESSION OF PERCOCET {¶ 13} Skorvanek’s second assignment of error is that his conviction for possession of Percocet is based on insufficient evidence and is against the manifest weight of the evidence because he established

State ex rel. Taylor v. Indus. Comm.

2022 Ohio 2598 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2022

Petrie found that the specific safety requirements in Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5 may apply to outdoor areas and qualify as "workshops." See State ex rel. Brammer v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. … Initially, the bus upon which claimant was injured is clearly a "motor vehicle," as that term is commonly and plainly defined.

Srail v. RJF International Corp.

126 Ohio App. 3d 689 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1998

RJF next maintains that the plaintiffs never established that they were qualified for any of the challenged positions. Testimony at trial was disputed on this issue. … RJF also stated that neither Srail nor Glover is qualified for any position at the company.

State v. Kerr

2012 Ohio 3360 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 2012

consent from Carnegie regarding the Fifth Third account and the IRA check used to pay Kerr’s attorney. {¶24} After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we find sufficient evidence to establish … jury. {¶27} Evid.R. 702 states: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified

State v. Bekesz

75 Ohio App. 3d 436 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 1991

Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record before us to support the conclusion that appellant’s attorney was “exceptionally qualified and diligent” as there was in Peterseim . … The only clearly evident and established fact the two cases have in common is that in both cases the trial court went to unusual lengths in explaining the nature and consequences of the respective appellants’ pleas, as required

Trish's Café & Catering, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Health

195 Ohio App. 3d 612 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2011

to smoking within his or her establishment.” … There is no dispute that the Altoids tin qualified as an ashtray or other receptacle for disposing of smoking materials under the Smoke-Free Act. See R.C. 3794.06(B).

State v. Robinson

2013 Ohio 4375 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 2013

He contends that the evidence only established that he acted “recklessly.” … Plain error does not occur unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different.

Graff v. Clark

50 Ohio Law. Abs. 481 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 1948

from the defendant’s right) and failed to stop before entering the intersection and also drove into said intersection from Belvoir Boulevard at a high and dangerous rate of speed, while the defendant’s evidence tended to establish … This charge is clearly erroneous. It completely ignores the ‘.right of way rule as provided in the traffic code.

Sims v. Cleveland Municipal School Dist., Unpublished Decision (5-2-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · May 2, 2002

under the listed exceptions to immunity. … "The immunity provided to a political subdivision and its employees by R.C. 2744.02 (A)(1) is broad, subject to the specific exceptions enumerated under subsection (B) or as qualified under R.C. 2744.03 ." Carrington v.

Simko v. Simko

2018 Ohio 2577 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2018

abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical * * * condition[ ] of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; * * * (g) The standard of living of the parties established … An abuse of discretion may be found when the trial court “applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact.” Thomas v.