Case law

State v. Hendrix

2013 Ohio 638 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2013

Osterloh found the lead isotope ratios to be either “clearly different” or “very different” from the ratios from H.H.’s specimen. … Quang was not qualified as an expert and thus his opinions on the chemistry involved cannot be considered reliable. And, although Drs.

Siegel v. Lifecenter Organ Donor Network

2011 Ohio 6031 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2011

Cleveland (C.A.6, 1992), Slip Op No. 91-3316, as establishing that eye banks, in general, are state actors. That was not the holding of Brotherton. … Equal Protection {¶37} The Siegels next claim that former R.C. 2108.08 violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions because it provided special privileges and immunities to a

Stave v. Beavers

2020 Ohio 69 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2020

Beavers may properly challenge whether the officer is qualified and competent to testify regarding the administration of the test. … the issue which is to be established before them.

Quill v. R.A. Investment Corp.

124 Ohio App. 3d 653 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 1997

The trial court found that CFX had neither title nor a claim of ownership in the real estate to qualify under the statute. It found that CFX’s *659 interest was a leasehold and, therefore, did not qualify. … Clearly, the original parties to the agreement foresaw that such an arrearage might occur sometime during the lease’s potentially infinite term.

S.R. Products v. Gerrity

156 Ohio App. 3d 150 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2004

.” {¶ 21} The plain language of R.C. 3781.031 clearly requires the fire department to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the reasonableness and lawfulness of the OBBA’s order. Copeland Corp. v. … , and if the municipality undertakes the performance of those functions, whether voluntarily or by legislative imposition, the municipality becomes an arm of sovereignty and a governmental agency and is entitled to that immunity

State, Ex Rel. Corron v. Wisner

23 Ohio App. 2d 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1970

The duty of assessing real estate is clearly that of the county auditor. R. … Wisner called attention to the enormity of the task of searching out those qualifying parcels. If his failure to accomplish uniformity be an abuse of discretion, it can hardly be called “gross” or “flagrant.”

State v. Freeman

2022 Ohio 1991 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2022

Clear and convincing evidence is that “‘which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Id. at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. … -4- Case Nos. 1-21-17, 1-21-18 proceeding clearly would have been otherwise.” Id.

State v. King

2011 Ohio 3323 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2011

an appellate court examines the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses, and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trial court “clearly … Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-102 10 {¶29} In the case at bar, ample evidence was presented to establish that Appellant was knowingly in constructive possession

State v. Swing

98 N.E.3d 828 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 2017

As a result, the Supreme Court established a two-prong test the prosecution must satisfy when a witness claims his or her immunized testimony was used: (1) the government must deny any use of the witness' own immunized testimony … "[T]he burden is on the state to establish that no use was made of the immunized statement and that the evidence to be used at trial was derived from sources wholly independent of the immunized statement." State v.

Baechel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

98 Ohio App. 3d 365 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 1994

A hearing officer issued an order stating that Raymond’s death was a result of an occupational disease arising out of his employment and that JoAnn was a dependent spouse and therefore qualified to participate in the Workers … Initially, the court’s jury instruction clearly required the jury to find that Raymond’s exposure to asbestos while working at Sears was injurious before an *370 entitlement to any benefits can be found.

Esber Beverage Co. v. Labatt USA Operating Co., L.L.C.

2012 Ohio 1183 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2012

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANTS WERE REQUIRED TO BE MANUFACTURERS AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE OF ASSETS TO QUALIFY AS A ‘SUCCESSOR MANUFACTURER … The statute clearly gives a successor manufacturer a narrow window of time in which to determine whether it wants to keep the franchise agreements with distributors it assumed from its predecessor, or whether it wants to

City of Greenfield v. Schluep, Unpublished Decision (2-1-2006)

2006 Ohio 531 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2006

Chapter 2744 establishes a three-tier analysis for determining whether a political subdivision is immune from liability. Carter, 83 Ohio St.3d at 28 , 697 N.E.2d at 615 . … The court held: "Common law agency principles, however, are clearly trumped by the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act. See Reno v. City of Centerville, 2nd Dist.

Straus v. Doe, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2004)

2004 Ohio 5316 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2004

Appellant now appeals. {¶ 20} Appellant assigns the following error for our review: {¶ 21} "The defense of qualified immunity to defamation per se requires the presence of good faith and the absence of actual malice. … The defense of qualified privilege is based upon public policy. Id.

State v. Ritchey

2023 Ohio 1625 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 15, 2023

“The jury then determines whether sufficient evidence has been presented to establish venue * * *.” … the issue which is to be established before them.

Morlatt v. Johnson

2022 Ohio 4155 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2022

The trial court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed. … “A private nuisance may be categorized as either an absolute or a qualified nuisance.” Adkins v. Boetcher, 4th Dist. Ross No. 08CA3060, 2010-Ohio-554, ¶ 16.

State v. Delawder

2012 Ohio 1923 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2012

Id. at ¶13. {¶25} Even if we presume Delawder qualified for an involuntary manslaughter Scioto App. … not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

Toles v. Reg. Emergency Dispatch Ctr., Unpublished Decision (3-10-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2003

may be asserted to establish nonliability: {¶ 30} "(1) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the employee involved was engaged in the performance of a judicial, quasi-judicial, prosecutorial, legislative, … Ellington committed negligence within a building being utilized in this clearly governmental function, immunity under R.C. 2744.02 (B)(4) would not apply, nor would wanton or willful misconduct be required. {¶ 80} However

In re U.B.

2025 Ohio 1265 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2025

weight in permanent custody cases, we “must weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly … At the time of trial, U.B. no longer qualified for temporary custody. As such, this finding is satisfied. c.

State v. Reymann

55 Ohio App. 3d 222 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 1989

The statements from the three witnesses were clearly hearsay. McHenry’s observation of brown paint on one of the vehicles, in and of itself, does not lead to an inference that a hit-skip occurred at another location. … As to dismissal, the United States Supreme Court has stated that a criminal defendant “cannot claim immunity from prosecution simply because his appearance in court was precipitated by an unlawful arrest.

Wilson v. Wilson

2023 Ohio 3521 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2023

The bonuses, therefore, both qualified as income in the years Husband received them and, because he retained them, became a marital asset subject to equitable division. … This Court “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly lost its way * * *.”