Case law

State v. Carter

2024 Ohio 444 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2024

Conversely, “ ‘[i]t is well established that the trial court will not instruct the jury where there is no evidence to support an issue.’ ” State v. Mankin, 10th Dist. … Privilege is defined as “an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or implied grant, arising out of status, position, office, or relationship, or growing out of necessity.”

State v. Johnson

2020 Ohio 2676 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2020

Where the record contains a presentence-investigative ("PSI") report that details the offender's personal and financial information, that report will establish compliance with the statute. State v. Dehner, 12th Dist. … Our determination that R.C. 2903.08(A)(2)(b) is a non- qualifying third-degree felony offense establishes that postrelease control is not mandatory.

Schiff v. Schiff

36 Ohio Law. Abs. 626 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1942

Finally, it is asserted that any offense which may have been proven clearly has been condoned by the appellee. … Morris Schiff denies its receipt, and it does not clearly appear that it was received by him.

Driftmyer v. Carlton, L-06-1029 (4-27-2007)

2007 Ohio 2036 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2007

Smith further stated that the parties clearly intended to form a "special" separate *Page 15 trust; however, "Linda Velandra failed to alert Gary Driftmyer to the fact that this special trust hadn't been established." {¶ … Section E of Gary Driftmyer's life insurance application names the "Qualified Pension or Profit Sharing Trust described in section D" as the beneficiary of that policy.

State v. Brown, 2006-A-0045 (8-24-2007)

2007 Ohio 4380 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 2007

"`Privilege' means an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or implied grant, arising out of status, position * * * or relationship, or growing out of necessity." … In Ohio, a party seeking to utilize the defense of necessity must established his actions were a result of a "physical or natural force, rather than a human force." See, e.g., State v.

State v. Simmons

2011 Ohio 6074 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2011

Simmons followed her to the establishment and attempted to convince her to leave with him. … Clearly however, the above testimony establishes society, affection, aid, friendship, and cooperation as well as conjugal relations.

State v. Whitman

182 N.E.3d 506 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2021

fifth degree that is not an offense of violence or that is a qualifying assault offense if any of the following apply: *** (iv) The offense is a sex offense that is a fourth or fifth … continuance fail because they involve “strategic choices of counsel that [fall] within the realm of trial strategy and tactics that will not ordinarily be disturbed on appeal”). {¶ 56} Moreover, appellant fails to establish

Smith v. Mayfield Heights (City)

99 Ohio App. 501 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 1955

In the celebrated Dartmouth College case, Webster defined it as follows: “By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment … The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society.”

McCreary v. Taylor Cadillac, Inc.

2025 Ohio 2562 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 2025

However, in her response to the motion to compel arbitration, she disputed whether the contract was assigned and whether GLS qualified as an assignee. … Thus, McCreary has not established that the trial court erred by referring GLS to arbitration alongside Taylor Cadillac at this juncture.

State v. Rice

2013 Ohio 1071 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2013

As the K9's handler, Officer Lamanna testified that she was uniquely qualified to recognize Raca’s action of sitting down to be indicative of an alert. … Regardless of this misstatement, the trial court’s decision to overrule Rice’s motion to suppress was correct because, as we have found, the facts adduced at the hearing clearly support the finding that the police had

Pennsylvania Rd. Co. v. United Collieries, Inc.

59 Ohio App. 540 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1938

the presumption of ownership or contract thereby established, is responsible for freight charges accruing up to the time of such receipt or reconsignment order.” … destroys the presumption of ownership or contract thereby established, is responsible for freight charges accruing up to the time of such receipt or reconsignment order.

Brecksville v. Sadaghiani

2021 Ohio 2443 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2021

Grimm was not qualified to testify to the authenticity of the documents. … The city established venue when Det.

Everhart v. Merrick Mfg. II, L.L.C.

204 N.E.3d 620 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2022

. {¶ 39} According to Appellees, R.C. 2305.10(C)(1) qualifies as such a statute by taking away the trial court’s jurisdiction. … . {¶ 56} Although the United States is immune from suit based on sovereign immunity, “which precludes federal jurisdiction,” the jurisdictional basis in Tuck was the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. 1346

In re A.A.

2016 Ohio 2992 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 16, 2016

The juvenile court further noted that A.A. has been given the medical attention she requires now that she has been placed in foster care and that she is current on all her immunizations. The record also indicates A.A.' … Again, because the record firmly establishes that both Mother and Father had their parental rights involuntarily terminated with respect to A.A.'

Phillips v. City of Garfield Heights

85 Ohio App. 3d 413 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 1992

The directed verdict was clearly inappropriate in light of these remaining questions. For these reasons, we find that plaintiffs’ first assignment of error is well taken. … At no time did the court state that the definition of absolute nuisance was given to help the jury to better understand qualified nuisance.

Surber v. Greenville Twp. Bd. of Trustees

2026 Ohio 1305 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2026

But Surber’s deposition testimony and Yount’s statements at the Board hearing clearly established that Surber had in fact requested and obtained an agricultural exemption for Building A in March 2019. {¶ 46} The … record also established that Surber sought a refund of the $864 fee that he had paid for the commercial zoning permit.

State Ex Rel. Horton v. Shoemaker, Unpublished Decision (10-1-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 2002

Luchette must establish that he had a clear legal right to immediate dismissal of the Theobald complaint as to him, that Judge Shoemaker had a clear legal duty to dismiss him immediately without a hearing, and that Dr. … . {¶ 27} In sum, the complaint alleges that the Court of Claims intends to determine the personal immunity of Dr. Luchette and others, a matter clearly within the court's statutory jurisdiction. By adding Dr.

Edwards v. I. Schumann Co., 88528 (6-21-2007)

2007 Ohio 3067 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2007

. {¶ 10} It is well established that the party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that no issues of material fact exist for trial. Celotex Corp. v. … R.C. 3319.16 does not immunize the board from the dictates of state policy, and it certainly does not provide teachers with less protection against wrongful discharges than the common law generally affords to at-will employees

State v. Boehme

2017 Ohio 8246 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2017

Miceli was qualified to testify as an expert with respect to abused children, he pointed out that the victim in that case was an adult. … The evidence presented at trial here to establish each of Boehme’s offenses was simple and direct. Jane’s testimony clearly delineates each offense. The first rape occurred when Boehme put his fingers inside her.

Meranda Nixon Estate Wine, L.L.C. v. Cherry Fork Farm Supply Co.

243 N.E.3d 576 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2024

was needed to establish duty and breach for their negligence-based claims. … "Courts generally agree that violation of a statute will not preclude defenses and excuses—i.e., strict liability—unless the statute clearly contemplates such result." Id. 496.