Case law

Neely v. Franklin County Auditor

97 Ohio App. 3d 771 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1994

The prima facie case requires a showing that (1) the complainant belongs to a racial minority; (2) the complainant is qualified for the job; (3) the complainant was discharged; and (4) the position remained open after the … Upon Neely’s resignation, MRDD clearly had no further obligation to suggest either a predisciplinary conference or participation in its drug rehabilitation program.

State ex rel. Pelmear v. Henry Cty. Land Reutilization Corp.

2025 Ohio 4998 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2025

Compare id. at *4, fn. 2 (acknowledging that “[w]hile Civ.R. 30(B)(4) allows a Civ.R.34 request to accompany a notice of deposition, no such request was clearly set forth in Appellee’s notice”). … Pelmear’s primary argument is that none of the Land Bank’s gatherings qualified as regular meetings because it failed to adopt a yearly meeting schedule, which he contends was required by its own rules.

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

Konrad v. Morant

89 Ohio App. 3d 803 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1993

Clearly, the focus in determining whether an activity is recreational is not on the instrument used in the activity but on the expectations of the participants. … That will be the evidence that we present * * Appellant proceeded to introduce evidence surrounding the accident which also went towards establishing negligence.

Franck v. Franck, 10-07-22 (2-19-2008)

2008 Ohio 624 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2008

the acquisition of a professional degree of the other party; (k) The time and expense necessary for the spouse who is seeking spousal support to acquire education, training, or job experience so that the spouse will be qualified … The magistrate clearly considered all of the statutory factors for awarding spousal support. The trial court also reviewed the factors and found that spousal support should not be exchanged.

State ex rel. Dattilio v. Indus. Comm.

2025 Ohio 182 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2025

“[W]ork need No. 22AP-421 10 not be regular or daily” to qualify as sustained. Id. … “[I]ntermittent and occasional” or “part-time” work may qualify.

DeMatteo v. State Teachers Retirement Sys.

2018 Ohio 3635 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 2018

Brain fog, a symptom of the fibromyalgia and a side effect of the rheumatoid arthritis medication impaired my ability to think and process clearly. … Respondent clearly fails to do so here. {¶ 33} In Brass Pole v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 10th Dist.

State v. Bridge

60 Ohio App. 3d 76 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 1989

In the case subjudice, the evidence clearly establishes that an aggravated burglary was committed; however, appellant asserts that the only evidence linking him with the crime was circumstantial and was, therefore, insufficient … In the case sub judice, we find that the evidence presented established that (1) Corbett was qualified, both by training and experience, to use the dog; (2) Nick was adequately trained to track humans; (3) Nick, by virtue

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.

A.M.R. v. Zane Trace Local Bd. of Edn.

2012 Ohio 2419 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 30, 2012

We hold that this letter satisfies the definition of a final order under R.C. 2506.01 – a representative of the Board clearly set forth a decision by the Board that determined A.M.R.’s rights. … We disagree. {¶34} Once the Board conceded that the hearing occurred outside the statutory time-limit, A.M.R. met her burden to establish irregularity in the proceedings below.

State v. Rosa-DeJesus

2024 Ohio 2472 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2024

In addition, Rosa-DeJesus asserted that the organization that trained the facility dog lacked credentialing or certification to establish it was qualified to train service or … See id. at ¶ 16. {¶31} Patrick is clearly distinguishable from this case.

Greene County Agric. Society v. Mangan, Unpublished Decision (8-13-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 1999

Although we agree with the trial court that "a function need not directly affect all citizens of the state" in order to qualify as a governmental function pursuant to R.C. 2744.01 (C) (1) (b), we are inclined to agree with … According to the Limings, the conduct giving rise to this claim was Mangan's failure to consider certain evidence tending to show that the hogs in question were different animals, his failure to follow established procedures

Johnson v. American Family Insurance

160 Ohio App. 3d 392 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2005

. {¶ 3} The trial court ultimately denied appellant’s summary-judgment motion but granted summary judgment to AFI, determining that although AFI had not definitively established that Salmanpoor was not a relative under the … Therefore, since Salmanpoor was not listed as a named insured on the declarations page, was not a “relative,” and did not otherwise qualify, she is not a an “insured” under the policy.

Coolidge v. Riegle, Unpublished Decision (1-29-2004)

2004 Ohio 347 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2004

Therefore, I would hold that Riverdale is not protected by immunity from Coolidge's employer intentional tort claim. … This evidence is clearly sufficient to establish at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Riverdale has committed an intentional tort within the requirements of Fyffe v.

State v. Branham

104 Ohio App. 3d 355 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1995

In order for Grasa’s out-of-court statements to qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule under Evid.R. 804(B)(3), it must be established that (1) Grasa was unavailable as a witness, (2) the statements were against Grasa … Finally, pursuant to Evid.R. 804(B)(3), there must be corroborating circumstances which clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statements sought to be admitted.

Cates v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

100 Ohio App. 3d 288 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 1995

In any event, the decision concerning the need for such devices involves “policy making powers” for which the city enjoyed immunity- The evidence fairly established that Irwin Street meets the railroad track at a ninety-degree … Thus to accept this assertion is to define the crossbuck as a STOP sign, which it clearly is not according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

State v. Osman

2011 Ohio 4626 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2011

Once it [is] established that the witness intend[s] to claim his privilege of immunity, the court commit[s] error prejudicial to the defendant in permitting the prosecutor to continue his line of questioning, which place … Therefore, the prosecution was obliged to establish the unavailability of the witnesses.

Mataraza v. City of Euclid

193 Ohio App. 3d 479 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2011

Again, the presence of these risk factors do not establish that James had atherosclerosis in 1991 when he was hired. … These expert opinions do not establish the existence of a preexisting disease, as the presence of risk factors alone is insufficient to establish, as matter of law, that James had preexisting cardiovascular disease.

Granger v. Auto Owners Ins.

2013 Ohio 2792 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2013

This is particularly true when considering provisions that purport to limit or qualify coverage under the policy.” (Internal citation omitted.) Westfield Ins. Co. v. Hunter, 128 Ohio St.3d 540, 2011-Ohio-1818, ¶ 11. … “But if all the claims are clearly and indisputably outside the contracted coverage, the insurer need not defend the insured.”

State Ex Rel. Ewing v. a Motion Picture Film Entitled "Without a Stitch"

28 Ohio App. 2d 107 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 1971

This court does not need a little boy’s exclamation to establish that the king, in fact, had nothing on. … The cases clearly establish the right, if not the necessity, of the court to view the material; this the court has done. See Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), 378 U. S. 184 , 12 L. Ed. 2d 793 , 84 S. Ct. 1676 ; Womack v.