Case law

Bedel v. University of Cincinnati Hospital

107 Ohio App. 3d 420 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1995

Kelly was entitled to immunity. On April 7, 1993, the Court of Claims filed an entry in which it found that Dr. … Kelly was entitled to immunity under R.C. 9.86 and, as a result, the common pleas court did not have jurisdiction over a cause of action arising from his acts.

General Motors Corp. v. Joe O'Brien Chevrolet, Inc.

118 Ohio App. 3d 470 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1997

The RMA contains dealerships that provide adequate to superior sales and service facilities, equipment, supply of vehicle parts, and qualified sales and service personnel. … While the franchisor would like to increase penetration, and such a goal is clearly desirable, there is no reliable evidence that the relocation as proposed would result in attaining those goals.

State v. Zuniga

2021 Ohio 196 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2021

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT QUALIFIED SERGEANT BARRETT AS AN EXPERT IN K9 TRAINING AND DRUG DETECTION.” {¶22} “IV. … Pursuant to Evid.R. 104(A), the trial court determines whether a witness qualifies as an expert, and that determination will be overturned only for an abuse of discretion. State v.

Tarr v. Am. Flooring Transport, Inc.

2015 Ohio 3313 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2015

addressing a civil manifest weight challenge, must determine whether the finder of fact, in resolving Stark County, Case No. 2014 CA 00216 5 conflicts in the evidence, clearly … It is incumbent that a proponent of business records set forth an adequate foundation to establish the admissibility of the records under Evid.R. 803(6). See Hinte v.

Dept. of Natural Resources v. Knapke Trust

2015 Ohio 470 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2015

This was qualified by Mark Knapke wherein he testified that the flooding on the farm never lasted more than a few weeks, and was at times only days in duration. … . {¶50} Second, when looking at this jury instruction in its entirety, there are further qualifying statements that clearly inform the jury as to the nature of the flooding.

McCleery v. Leach, Unpublished Decision (4-11-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2003

Penn at 149: {¶ 40} "*** Willitzer stands for the proposition that physicians who are not appointed by a court are to be granted no more than qualified immunity for work conducted outside the court. … Without reliance to establish proximate cause, appellant's claims for negligence and malpractice cannot be established. {¶ 58} Thus, the trial court's finding of no proximate cause was correct.

Hetrick v. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture

98 N.E.3d 1199 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2017

The lower court did not address how Hetrick’s application would qualify for a permit under section (A)(2) if it did not qualify for one under section (A)(1). {¶ 49} For his part, Hetrick argues that he was “unequivocally … The common pleas court concluded that the “statute clearly contemplates the issuance of a rescue facility permit followed by inspections * * *.”

Trumpler v. Royer

18 Ohio App. 151 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1918

Slusser, Samuel Dahm was appointed and qualified as the executor of her will. … It is thoroughly established in Ohio, beginning’ with the case of Lucht, Admr., v.

In re L.N.

121 N.E.3d 795 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2018

Before we reverse the trial court for plain error, we must find that the error is clearly apparent from the face of the record and is prejudicial to the appellant. State v. … R.C. 2152.83(B)(1) allows the court to hold a classification hearing 2 L.N. does not dispute the state’s assertion the JRC qualified as a “secure facility” under R.C. 2950.01(O). 8.

Hornung v. Hornung, 06 Ap-304 (6-21-2007)

2007 Ohio 3222 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2007

"It is well-established that where negotiations between the [divorcing] parties have resulted in an agreement as to property division, the terms of which are memorialized on the record, the court may properly incorporate … appellate court concluded that Brilla should be held to the settlement agreement and that the magistrate's discrepancies in its decision journalizing the settlement agreement did not "nullify the settlement agreement" as "clearly

State v. Martin

136 Ohio App. 3d 355 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1999

Defendant urges us to disregard the trial court’s failure to make findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14 and to independently determine that the record clearly and convincingly establishes that the trial court’s sentence was in … The sentencing statutes, including those that govern appellate review of sentences, establish a single systematic procedure for felony sentencing in Ohio.

Kemo v. City of St. Clairsville

128 Ohio App. 3d 178 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 1998

A review of the record indicates that both Bauer and Bigler considered appellee qualified to execute the inspection duties. … In the present matter, the record clearly indicates that appellant regarded appellee’s physical capabilities to be limited in some way.

State v. Yarbrough

2025 Ohio 5437 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2025

Under the statute, a trial court must impose an indefinite prison term for a qualifying offense that consists of a minimum term selected by the sentencing judge from the range of terms provided in R.C. 2929.14(A) and a … Then they’ll establish a new out date for you. It's presumed you’ll be released on that date. Unless what?

State v. Johnson

2022 Ohio 4629 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2022

The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized “that courts have permitted lay witnesses to express their opinions in areas in which it would ordinarily be expected that an expert must be qualified under Evid.R. 702.” … Montgomery No. 27181, 2017-Ohio-7094, this court held that irrespective of whether a police officer was qualified to testify as an expert regarding the operation of a revolver, the officer’s testimony established that he

Burns v. Crowe

35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 468 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1920

At most, this opinion is a criticism of the reasons for the establishment of the rule which excludes such testimony. … Under such facts we can not say that the record does not present evidence to- sustain this verdict, nor that the verdict is clearly wrong.

State v. Mitchell

2022 Ohio 3176 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2022

Specifically, Mitchell contends that his prior battery conviction in Florida did not qualify to enhance the degree of the offense pursuant to R.C. 2919.25(D)(3). … Moreover, the State did not seek to call R.B. merely to establish paternity, as suggested by Mitchell. K.R.’s credibility was a central issue in the case.

State v. Schrock

2013 Ohio 441 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2013

Rouse correctly recognizes that “[i]n Vega, the court clearly endorsed the legislative delegation of R.C. 3701.143,” but then goes on to state that Vega establishes a “rebuttable presumption of reliability of R.C. 4511.19 … Thus, the central issue as presented in the case before us, does the Intoxilyzer 8000 qualify as “proper equipment”? The answer is “yes” if it is generally reliable and “no” if it is not.

Sheets v. Antes

14 Ohio App. 3d 278 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 1984

In an entry dated October 30, 1980, the probate court, finding that appellant had not established that appellee received any money improperly or that the inventory was insufficient, overruled appellant’s exceptions to the … Appellant appealed this “judgment entry” to this court and we dismissed the appeal on January 13, 1981, since the trial court had clearly not entered final judgment concerning the inventory.

Loomis v. Troknya

165 Ohio App. 3d 300 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2006

According to the inspector, she advised *303 appellant that appellant would have to point out the parameters of the leach bed in order to establish its presence. … This is clearly shown by her original offer, which was conditioned on appellees’ fixing the problem.

Smith v. Omaits

2016 Ohio 1442 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 2016

. {¶10} Appellees also urged the documents relied upon by Appellant established no basis of fact for his claims. The affidavit of Mr. … Id. at 262. {¶30} Appellant responds by arguing that his allegations of fraud by the estate’s attorney qualify as the special circumstances contemplated in McCord.