Case law

Miami University v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission

133 Ohio App. 3d 28 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 1999

The commission did not have to disprove this negative possibility in order to establish its prima facie case. … Back pay is clearly among the types of relief that the commission may order. See R.C. 4112.05(G)(1).

Stupp v. Lear

36 Ohio Law. Abs. 20 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1942

However, the specific objection urged by counsel for defendant upon the motion to strike was that the witness had not qualified to testify on the subject. We-find no prejudicial error in the admission of the testimony. … We find that in both cases the testimony under the -consideration and which was held to be probative, clearly had more direct and sequential connection with one of the ultimate questions for determination than the proffered

Adkins v. Middletown

2025 Ohio 317 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2025

He qualified this statement by explaining that "I can only speculate." {¶ 124} It is well established that a vague charge of discrimination is insufficient to constitute opposition to an unlawful employment practice … And he clearly established the third prong because his termination was an adverse employment action. {¶ 129} However, Adkins has not pointed to any evidence establishing a causal connection between his complaint

State v. Patterson

110 Ohio App. 3d 264 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 1996

The record clearly demonstrates that a presentence investigation report was neither ordered by the trial court nor requested by the defendant. … At trial, it was clearly established that Roberts was deceased at the time of the trial due to causes unrelated to the incident underlying the charges against Patterson.

State v. Hughley

20 Ohio App. 3d 77 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 1984

The Supreme Court has qualified its position in Blockbwrger, supra, however, in subsequent cases. … Hence, appellant’s assignment of error is without merit as he was clearly notified of the exact charges against him.

Turner-Brannock v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services

15 Ohio App. 3d 134 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1984

As used in R.C. 124.34, “removal * * * for disciplinary reasons” imports a concept of punitive treatment of a refor-mational nature designed to correct or punish for failure to accept, obey or comply with an established system … Clearly, this does not involve a removal for disciplinary reasons. Nor does appellant’s apparent failure to take a civil service exam qualify as an act of misfeasance or nonfeasance as set forth in the statute.

State v. Lathon

2024 Ohio 5886 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2024

But, the record does not clearly establish when these posts were made, much less prove when any of the photographs were taken. (See Tr. Vol. VI at 1285-90; Ex. L Series.) … Even assuming this alleged robbery happened—and I do not believe the record before us clearly establishes that it did— there is no indication as to when it occurred, which is necessary to assessing whether “[t]he last of

Artisan & Truckers Cas. Co. v. JMK Transp., L.L.C.

2013 Ohio 3577 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 2013

Prior to the establishment of JMK, Barkley was the sole shareholder of A&K Barkley Cab Co., Inc. (A&K). A&K was a general purpose cab company which had operated for several years. … However, both parties concede that the Crown Victoria did not qualify as a "replacement auto" and therefore we will not address this issue.

Dayton v. State

170 N.E.3d 502 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2021

MOTORISTS’ OPTIONS UPON RECEIVING SUCH A CITATION AND THAT ESTABLISH GENERALLY APPLICABLE RULES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF STATE MONEY DO NOT ESTABLISH RULES OF CONDUCT FOR CITIZENS GENERALLY AND, THEREFORE, DO NOT SATISFY … Akron, 173 Ohio St. 189, 194, 181 N.E.2d 26 (1962). {¶ 19} A statute qualifies as a general law if it satisfies four criteria.

State v. Hicks-Stevens

230 N.E.3d 477 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2023

clearly would have been otherwise.” … However, “[i]f testimony qualifies as nonhearsay, it does not implicate the Confrontation Clause.” State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-5735, 70 N.E.3d 508, ¶ 186, citing Crawford v.

State v. Goff

154 Ohio App. 3d 59 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2003

Plain error is defined as “error but for the occurrence of which it can be said that the outcome of the trial would have clearly been otherwise.” State v. Sanders (May 17, 2000), 9th Dist. … “The appropriate standard of review to be applied in sexual predator adjudications is the clearly erroneous standard.” State v. Unrue, 9th Dist.

Fouke v. Commercial Credit Corp.

116 Ohio App. 145 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 1962

The evidence here tends to establish these facts: Ruppert became a Buick dealer in 1955. He obtained his financing with G.M.A.C. through floor-plan mortgages. … We think that the record clearly requires this result.

State v. Jenkins

2021 Ohio 123 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 2021

“It is well established that ‘the question of the constitutionality of a statute must generally be raised at the first opportunity and, in a criminal prosecution, this means in the trial court.’” State v. … After reviewing the record, we do not find that the trial court clearly lost its way in finding Jenkins guilty of rape and domestic violence.

State v. Wright

2020 Ohio 5195 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2020

Thus, because appellant’s prison term is within the permissible range, we must consider whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly not supported by the record. State v. … cites to a concurrence in Brown that  HIGHLAND, 20CA05 12 stated, “[t]his writer does not feel that the crimes committed by appellant qualify

Kacian v. Illes Construction Co.

24 Ohio App. 2d 43 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1970

If appellant’s actions gave rise to a cause of action, they did so at the time they *49 tvere done, and the only immunity that appellant could possibly have relied upon was that he was outside the jurisdiction of local courts … [This] * * * merely establishes a new mode of obtaining jurisdiction of the person of the defendant in order to secure existing rights, which are unaffected by this amendment.

State v. Haley

2014 Ohio 2515 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2014

the issue, which is to be established before them. … Coshocton County, Case No. 2014CA0002 6 {¶14} R.C. 2901.01(A)(12) defines “privilege” as "an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express

State v. Kilbane

2014 Ohio 1228 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2014

In other words, plain error requires that “but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise.” State v. … exception to the hearsay rules, but because — having been created for the administration of an entity’s affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial — they are not testimonial

Beck v. Adam Wholesalers of Toledo, Unpublished Decision (9-28-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2001

R.C. 2744.02 (B) apply, and (4) whether appellee is entitled to a defense or qualified immunity under R.C. 2744.03 (A). … may be asserted to establish nonliability: "* * * "(3) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the action or failure to act by the employee involved that gave rise to the claim of liability was within the discretion

Nationstar Mtge., L.L.C. v. Bates-Brown

2019 Ohio 1073 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2019

In so arguing, she ignores the plain language of the entry itself that clearly denies that motion. … Because the entry itself clearly denies the motion to join, Bates-Brown's second assignment of error is overruled. B.

Bobash v. City of Toledo

129 Ohio App. 3d 202 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 1998

Established custom and practice should be considered in construing the meaning of the agreement. … Section 3 of the 1984 “memorandum of understanding” clearly and unambiguously vests the chief of police with authority to choose any of the top three ranked command officers for promotion to captain.