Case law

State v. Harper, 07 Ca 151 (12-30-2008)

2008 Ohio 6926 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2008

, when reviewing whether a judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this court reviews the record, weighs the evidence, considers the credibility of the witnesses and determines whether the trier of fact clearly … It was also established by Ms. Bevans' testimony that appellant was in the residence that morning playing video games and that he had been burning materials in the backyard.

Euclid Manor Nursing Home v. Board of Review

28 Ohio App. 3d 17 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 1985

Otherwise, an employee who finds employment for which he is not suited, or fully qualified, would be *23 discharged for just cause, contrary to the Peyton case, noted above.” … Lake Geauga Printing Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 41, 43-44 [ 23 O.O.3d 57 ], In this case, the referee abused his discretion by refusing to accept and consider sworn affidavits from key witnesses about clearly relevant matters

State v. Robinson

2022 Ohio 2896 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 2022

In our view, the record establishes that Cosme was qualified to testify as an expert witness with respect to arson investigations, and the fact that the “magic words” designating him as such were not spoken did not amount … However, Moorehead’s testimony regarding the phone calls was not hearsay because Moorehead was clearly present when the calls were received, and she testified that she recorded one of the calls with her own cellphone.

In re B.B.C.

2024 Ohio 588 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2024

Father’s case plan objective included establishing paternity for the child, which he did satisfy. … The evidence clearly and convincingly supports this finding.

Ricketts v. Ricketts

109 Ohio App. 3d 746 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 1996

The trial court is directed to recalculate the amount of appellant’s pension fund to which appellee is entitled in accordance with the formula established in the divorce decree and the coverture fraction as established in … Further, the Ohio Supreme Court has clearly and expressly indicated that spousal support awards “should possess a degree of finality and certainty.” Ressler, 17 Ohio St.3d at 18 , 17 OBR at 15, 476 N.E.2d at 1033 .

Washington v. Evans

168 N.E.3d 638 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 2021

.) {¶ 6} There is no dispute that appellant qualifies as a "resident relative"1 as she was residing with her grandmother at the time of the accident. … Appellee argued the claim for medical payments should be dismissed because appellant did not qualify as an "insured" under the policy.

Biro v. Biro, 2006-L-068 (6-22-2007)

2007 Ohio 3191 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2007

Martinet's testimony established his qualifications as an expert capable of giving an opinion on the valuation of the family-held business. Mr. … Martinet clearly possesses specialized knowledge not possessed by lay persons and meets the requirements of Evid.R. 702(A) and (B).

Lynch v. Studebaker, 88117 (8-9-2007)

2007 Ohio 4014 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2007

Wuliger (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 229 , filing a counterclaim and thereafter communicating its existence to others is privileged and thus, they are immune from Lynch's defamation claim. … Lastly, Lynch's replacement was a younger and less qualified person.

State v. Hari

2016 Ohio 2987 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 16, 2016

According to Deputy Lenhardt, the entire time he was “clocking the subject, he was clearly in the 25 mile an hour zone.” (Id. at 14). … the device and its method of operation in determining the speed of the approaching vehicle, (2) evidence that the device is in good condition for accurate work, and (3) evidence that the officer using the device is one qualified

State v. Steward

159 N.E.3d 356 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2020

evidence, an appellate court reviews "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 jury clearly … No. 19AP-28 23 {¶ 81} On review, we conclude the jury did not clearly lose its way or create a manifest miscarriage of justice in returning

State v. Garland

116 Ohio App. 3d 461 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1996

The initial determination of whether a witness qualifies to testify as an expert rests with the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Kitchens v. … We conclude that the state established an adequate foundation for Russell’s expert testimony and find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in admitting it as such.

Chalmers v. HCR Manorcare, Inc.

93 N.E.3d 1237 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2017

The record clearly established that Dimora had a documented history of balance difficulties and needed assistance with the use of her walker. Id. Ultimately, Dimora fell backward while unattended and was injured. Id. … First, the patient in Dimora was clearly incapable of walking on her own accord, even with the assistance of a walker.

State v. Dugan

2013 Ohio 447 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2013

Additionally, the court reasoned that pursuant to Vega, test results can be suppressed upon a showing of noncompliance with ODH regulations or evidence that the operator of the testing instrument was not qualified. … compliance is limited to - 11 -  Butler CA2012-04-081 excusing only deviations from the regulations that are "clearly

Miller v. Premier Industrial Corp.

136 Ohio App. 3d 662 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2000

To establish a prima facie claim of age discrimination, appellant was required to demonstrate that he was 1) a member of the statutorily protected class (i.e., age forty or older) 2) discharged 3) qualified for the position … * * * The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.”

Nash v. Cleveland Clinic Found.

2013 Ohio 3618 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2013

Because the Ohio Supreme Court has clearly stated the trial court’s duty in this regard is mandatory, we have no choice but to remand the case to the trial court. {¶43} In accordance with Murphy, the case is remanded … In addition, the investigatory file is not subject to disclosure. {¶68} Under Ohio law, it is well-established that the trial court is vested with broad discretion when it comes to matters of discovery, and

Carasalina, L.L.C. v. Smith Phillips & Assocs.

2014 Ohio 2423 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2014

"To establish a prima facie case for money owed on an account, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of an account, including that the account is in the name of the party charged, and it must also establish (1) a beginning … "A trial court is not required to use the terms 'willfulness or bad faith' in a dismissal order, so long as such behavior can be established from the record." Id.

State v. Wangler

2012 Ohio 4878 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2012

Clearly, law enforcement was unaware of the content at the time the Journals were seized. … Schauer’s experience qualifies him to reach such a conclusion. In particular, Dr.

Smith v. Air-Ride, Unpublished Decision (3-27-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2003

this chapter." {¶ 21} R.C. 4123.01 (B)(2) defines "employer" to mean "[e]very person, firm, and private corporation * * * that (a) has in service one or more employees regularly in the same business or in or about the same establishment … No. 20 version of R.C. 3937.18 is the correct version, the policy still does not qualify as an automobile liability insurance policy subject to the requirements of R.C. 3937.18 .

In re N.E.

2010 Ohio 6012 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2010

One of the children was underweight and both were behind on immunizations. … The admitted facts clearly show that the children’s condition and environment were such as to warrant the state to step in to protect their best interests.

Loichot v. Allstate Development Corp.

33 Ohio App. 2d 121 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1963

Clearly, Bernard Loichot does not claim the right to file this action under such authority. We then pass to the provisions of R. C. 519.24. … Is Bernard Loichot, under these facts, an “adjacent or neighboring property owner,” and thus qualified to maintain the instant action?