Case law

Detzel v. Brush Wellman, Inc.

141 Ohio App. 3d 474 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2001

As such, the evidence was insufficient to establish that appellant had been treated differently. … Clearly, according to Kline and Burdine , a plaintiff can prove pretext by either “a direct showing that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or by an indirect showing that the employer’s explanation

Bend-Fast, Inc. v. SBA Monarch Towers III, L.L.C.

246 N.E.3d 61 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 28, 2024

At various times during 2006 (or earlier) Geneva established an access road over and across Bend-Fast’s property. … Lastly, governmental immunity does not apply to equitable relief.

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.

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

Snell v. Seidler, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2005)

2005 Ohio 6785 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2005

Consequently, the coroner only moved for summary judgment on state immunity grounds. … Appellant does not clearly establish how an individual's belief that they are authorized to order cremation is actionable where that person was permitted to order cremation by the authority holding the body who assisted the

State Ex Rel. Williams v. Indus. Comm., 06ap-671 (5-24-2007)

2007 Ohio 2525 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 24, 2007

While relator acknowledged that she did buy enough inventory to qualify for a car, relator testified that, since she received the car, she had not been able to purchase and sell enough inventory in order to qualify to have … Furthermore, questions of credibility and the weight to be given evidence are clearly within the discretion of the commission as fact finder. State ex rel. Teece v. Indus.

State v. Comer

2012 Ohio 2261 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 14, 2012

Plain error is one that affects a substantial right when, but for the error, the outcome of the trial would have clearly been otherwise. Id.; State v. … At the same time, had it included a qualifier that appellant was inside his home, it was erroneous. Did the instruction constitute error without either qualifier?

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.”

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.

Litigation Management, Inc. v. Bourgeois

182 Ohio App. 3d 742 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 14, 2009

The trial court determined that “[Somich’s] work may not have qualified her as LMI’s primary counsel at Baker & Hostetler, but it surely qualified her as she did have ‘substantial responsibility’ for this ‘matter,’ i.e., … Furthermore, appellants failed to establish that they took any action to timely and effectively screen Somich from participation in this matter.

State v. Kendall

258 N.E.3d 1284 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 3, 2025

“If the defendant can make this showing, the burden shifts to the State to establish that some exception[s] applied to toll the time and to make the trial timely. … Clearly, at trial date, it would not, if it hadn’t been decided it would not have stopped the trial from going forward.” Hrg.

In Re Estate of Usiak

172 Ohio App. 3d 262 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 2007

The phrase “if any” clearly indicates that the retention of counsel is discretionary. … Sup.R. 5(A)(1) does allow courts to adopt 'written local rules of practice that do not conflict with other rules established by the Ohio Supreme Court.

State v. Lowery

2011 Ohio 2827 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2011

Lowery’s May 5, 2010 filing was clearly outside the 180-day window provided by R.C. 2953.21(A)(2). {¶ 12} Additionally, Lowery has not satisfied the requirements to qualify for the exception to the 180-day time … “The doctrine of res judicata establishes that ‘a final judgment of conviction bars the convicted defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed

Long v. Tokai Bank of California

114 Ohio App. 3d 116 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1996

As a starting point for analysis, we note that the pertinent standards for assessing the propriety of summary judgment are well established. As this court previously observed in Doner v. … The sole argument advanced by appellants to establish a duty is the control that Tokai exercised, pursuant to the master lease agreement.

Flowers v. City of Whitehall, Unpublished Decision (8-1-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 2002

." * * * The [reviewing] 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 … Dorman (1994), 33 F.3d 472 , 477 ("In suits alleging illegal arrest, the qualified immunity determination turns on whether `a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established

Shaw v. Board of Education

17 Ohio Law. Abs. 588 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 1934

Judge Williams, in the case of Dunn v Agricultural Society, 46 Oh St, page 93, and particularly in the opinion starting on page 96, very clearly states and fully analyzes the question of liability and non-liability of civil … The principle that the state can not be sued without its consent is so well established as to need no authority in support.

State v. Robinson

2014 Ohio 1663 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2014

Next, we fail to see how defense counsel’s act of withdrawing the alleged untimely appeal qualifies as ineffective assistance. … Accordingly, a financial interest was established between counsel and Hunter.

Oakar v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation

88 Ohio App. 3d 332 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 1993

The Ohio Supreme Court stated clearly the purpose and the extent of the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and the relationship of its jurisdiction with that of the courts of common pleas in Ohio, when it held in Friedman … This type of ‘forum-shopping’ is not what was envisioned when the Court of Claims was established; rather, the exceptions to its exclusive jurisdiction should be strict and narrow.”

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?

Juergens v. Strang, Klubnik & Associates, Inc.

96 Ohio App. 3d 223 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1994

Extra hours or half hours worked during the week or working through lunch does not qualify as comp. time. Any exception to the above must have prior approval by either partner.” … “ ‘The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.