Case law

State v. Russell

2013 Ohio 3079 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2013

The Eighth District further noted that "[t]his broad phrase clearly implies that entities not listed in R.C. 2909.01(C) could also be deemed 'structures' for purposes of relevant statutes. … Russell contends that the hole in the fence surrounding JP Transportation placed the fence in such a state of disrepair that it could not qualify as an unoccupied structure, for purposes of R.C. 2911.13(A).

King Painting & Wallpapering, Inc. v. Aswin Ganapathy Hospitality Assocs., L.L.C.

2014 Ohio 1372 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2014

. {¶32} Civ.R. 36(B) provides: “Any matter admitted under this Rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.” … Sammy conceded that she is the “managing owner” of Aswin and that Aswin owns the motel, she clearly had authority to contract on behalf of Aswin. {¶66} We therefore hold the trial court did not err in granting summary

In Re Sullivan

167 Ohio App. 3d 458 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2006

In regard to Sugar Ridge at least, O’Connor did not even suggest any conceivable business equipment that could have been replaced in order to qualify for the depreciation exemption. … It is not the duty of the trial court to ferret out those expenses that qualify as ordinary and necessary.

State v. Bricher

2024 Ohio 394 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2024

manifest weight of the evidence, we review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly … Yet, we agree with Bricher that any fentanyl-related incidents—including the one on May 12, 2022—cannot qualify as “corrupt activity” under the statute.

State v. Thomson

2020 Ohio 600 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2020

To make a showing of plain error, an appellant “must establish that an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that the error affected his * * * substantial rights.” (Citation omitted.) State v. … Thomson’s second assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 31} For his third assignment of error, Thomson contends that: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ISSUING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR A [sic] CLEARLY

Bennett v. Sunnywood Land Dev., 06ca0089-M (5-7-2007)

2007 Ohio 2154 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 7, 2007

Rather, the decision must fly in the face of clearly established legal precedent. … Amaddio's decision that Appellant was negligent "`fl[ies] in the face of clearly established legal precedent[.]'"

State Ex Rel. Grien v. Ohio State Highway Patrol Retirement System

171 Ohio App. 3d 406 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 15, 2007

The board shall determine whether the member qualifies for disability retirement and its decision shall be final. … Such a result clearly does not comport with the scheme created by the General Assembly which established a separate and independent agency to oversee and manage the school employees retirement funds under R.C.

State v. Burch, 22478 (10-3-2008)

2008 Ohio 5161 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 2008

At approximately 3:30 a.m. on July 8, Howard and King went to an "after party" at the Posse Motorcycle Club, an establishment frequented by individuals from several motorcycle groups. {¶ 4} Howard first saw Burch at the Posse … "Contrastingly, the decision as to which of several competing inferences, suggested by the evidence in the record, should be preferred, is a matter in which an appellate judge is at least equally qualified, by reason *Page

In Re: The S Children

2018 Ohio 2961 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2018

Immediately before ruling on the motion, the court stated that it was going “to determine whether or not the state has met its burden of producing sufficient evidence to clearly and convincingly establish that these children … Having established our standard of review, we address the merits of this appeal.

State v. Kirby

2020 Ohio 4005 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2020

"Privilege" means 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. R.C. 2901.01(A)(12). 4. … CA2011-11-209, 2012-Ohio-5840, ¶ 90. {¶39} After review of the record, we find that the jury did not clearly lose its way in finding appellant guilty of aggravated burglary.

State v. Szozda

2022 Ohio 2294 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2022

The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings … Conclusion {¶ 64} On consideration whereof, we find that appellant has failed to establish that the felony sentence in this case was clearly and convincingly in violation of R.C. 2953.08, or was otherwise contrary

State v. Long

2021 Ohio 2672 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2021

As amended by the Reagan Tokes Act, the Ohio Revised Code’s sentences for first and second degree qualifying felonies violates the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Ohio, and constitutes … No. 20CA9 11 (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. {¶26} We may vacate or modify a felony sentence if we clearly and convincingly

Turner v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., Unpublished Decision (11-22-2006)

2006 Ohio 6168 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2006

Finally, the trial court found that the qualified and/or absolute immunity claim failed. … We also find the trial court improperly granted summary judgment on the qualified nuisance claim.

George v. Cleveland Trust Co.

22 Ohio App. 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1926

The important and qualifying words of Section 11014 are: ‘If it [the court] considers this necessary.’ … The distinction sought to be established between foreign guardians of minors and foreign guardians of imbeciles, etc., is not tenable.

State v. King

2013 Ohio 1694 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2013

A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. {¶ 17} In order for a statement to qualify as an … Clearly, Allen was still under the stress of excitement caused by the startling violent event. Allen’s statements related to the assault by King.

Hylton v. Womack, Unpublished Decision (9-25-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2001

Womack qualifies for the defense provided by Lehman, we sustain the second assignment of error and reverse the judgment of the trial court. … Womack also claimed that he took an antibiotic tablet that morning, although he may not clearly understand the difference between an antibiotic and a pain killer. The collision in which Mr. Hylton and Ms.

In re J.L.H.

2014 Ohio 2376 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2014

THE PROBATE COURTS DETERMINATION IS IN CONTRADICTION TO THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THERE WAS INDEED 'SIGNIFICANT INTERFERENCE AND/OR DISCOURAGEMENT … The Ohio Supreme Court emphasized that monetary gifts to the child do not qualify as support because they are not payments as required by law or judicial decree as R.C. 3107.07(A) requires.

State v. Martens

90 Ohio App. 3d 338 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1993

He has therefore waived any claim of error relative thereto, unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise. State v. … It was not, however, beyond the permissible limits established by Evid.R. 403 as being unfairly prejudicial.

State v. Jenkins

2017 Ohio 693 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2017

The photograph was clearly probative of such matters and was presented during the testimony of Dr. … I mean, engineers are qualified.

State ex rel. Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.

2024 Ohio 2079 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 30, 2024

“So long as that causal link is established, and [the claimant] is otherwise qualified, the claimant is eligible for TTD compensation.” … Giant Eagle points to its anti-harassment policy and statements purportedly made by claimant’s coworkers.7 Giant Eagle concludes that the SHO’s order granting TTD compensation was “clearly an error” because of “the myriad