Case law

State v. Haslam

2024 Ohio 6073 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2024

Love's testimony did not qualify under any of the exceptions listed in Evid.R. 404(B)(2). … Appellee established that Lt.

Sullivan v. IKEA

2020 Ohio 6661 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2020

} Specifically, the trial court found that Sullivan's age discrimination claim failed as a matter of law because Sullivan failed to establish he was qualified for his position as his job performance did not meet IKEA's … R.C. 4112.02(I) clearly provides that it prohibits retaliation only for engaging in activity relating to the reporting, investigation, or determination of practices proscribed by R.C. 4112.02, not those that may be defined

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.

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. 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

State v. Stewart

75 Ohio App. 3d 141 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 1991

To the contrary, it would seem that the victim was clearly not afraid. … Both witnesses qualified under Evid.R. 702 as experts.

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.

Giebner v. Summity County, Unpublished Decision (3-13-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2002

If a plaintiff is able to show that a political subdivision is liable pursuant to a R.C. 2744.02 (B) exception to the general broad grant of immunity, a political subdivision can still establish nonliability by demonstrating … the decision not to inspect or otherwise maintain the water valve box was clearly an exercise of discretion regarding how to use Summit County personnel, equipment, or facilities.

State v. Grant

2025 Ohio 5095 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2025

(the smell of marijuana alone by a person qualified to recognize the odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause to search a motor vehicle). … “The state’s burden, however, is not absolute since ‘[t]he state need only establish that it is reasonably certain that substitution, alteration or tampering did not occur.’” Id., citing State 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.

State ex rel. Turner Constr. Co. v. Indus. Comm.

2013 Ohio 5298 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 2013

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. … However, questions of credibility and the weight to be given evidence are clearly within the discretion of the commission as fact finder. Teece.

Hiles v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Unpublished Decision (1-5-2006)

2006 Ohio 16 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 2006

. § 1983 when the record contained probative evidence establishing a violation of the decedent's constitutional rights. 2. … Moreover, as previously noted, failure to administer CPR, by itself, does not establish deliberate indifference.

Collova v. Matousek

85 Ohio App. 3d 440 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1993

for the acts of its tenants and whether a genuine issue of a material fact exists establishing that Rockside Landfill was an absolute nuisance. … These provisions, absent a nuisance analysis, clearly insulate Cleveland Builders as a landlord from any liability for the landfill’s operation by the lessee.

State Ex Rel Alston v. Ind. Comm., 06ap-712 (5-8-2007)

2007 Ohio 2185 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 8, 2007

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. … As the commission notes in its brief, if relator's incomplete FROI is sufficient to qualify as a specific request for TTD compensation, then R.C. 4123.52 would have no legal effect regarding the original payment of compensation

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

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.

Bryant v. Inland Products, Inc.

68 Ohio Law. Abs. 509 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1953

The plaintiff on cross-examination qualified his statement as to seeing the arm of the driver of the truck but said, in substance, that he judged the position of the arm from the position of the hand. … Plaintiff, for the purpose of establishing the agency of the driver for the defendant, put the driver of the truck on the stand. He testified that he gave a signal for a right hand turn.

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.

State v. Medina

2021 Ohio 1727 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 20, 2021

Although the transcript does not contain an affirmative response from Medina on the issue of his right to subpoena witnesses to testify on his behalf, the above excerpt clearly indicates that the trial court tracked the … changed the terms of felony sentencing for qualifying felonies of the first or second degree.