Case law

State v. Berry

2017 Ohio 1490 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2017

Likewise, we conclude that the jury did not clearly lose its way in not giving great credit to Berry’s self-serving statement that he and the victim engaged in a consensual sexual encounter. … R.C. 2901.01(A)(12) defines “privilege” as “an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or implied grant, arising out of status, position, office, or relationship, or growing out of necessity.”

Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Worthington Custom Plastics, Inc.

109 Ohio App. 3d 550 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1996

R.C. 4123.411(C) clearly imposes liability on defendants to reimburse the bureau for all DWRF payments made to defendants’ injured employees. … Thus, we conclude that the language of the agreements pertaining to benefits clearly includes DWRF payments within the scope of coverage.

State v. Lewis

2024 Ohio 1786 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 9, 2024

While the forensic analyst agreed that the presence of DNA did not establish when the person had the car, the surrounding evidence established that Lewis had possession of the car prior to police locating it. … In the instant case, Lewis was found guilty of two or more felonies, one of which was a qualifying offense, i.e., aggravated robbery.

Knickerbocker v. Sharfenaker

29 Ohio Law. Abs. 309 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 1938

The named receiver gave bond as required and duly qualified as such. … Sharfenaker being appointed and qualified as executrix; her. final account and discharge on June 3,1929; the further allegation that Mary A.

Slack v. Henry, Unpublished Decision (12-1-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2000

Fisher Foods, Inc. (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 193 , for the proposition that indirect payment of workers' compensation premiums is sufficient to establish immunity. … In Fyffe , the Court held that in order to establish "intent" a plaintiff must establish: (1) knowledge by the employer of the existence of a dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition within its business

State v. Burns

2019 Ohio 1141 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2019

The trial court held that (1) the claims against the deputy were barred by res judicata, and (2) the claims against the prosecutor were barred by sovereign immunity; it dismissed the matter. Id. … The Supreme Court of Ohio and this Court have clearly set forth the required procedure under R.C. 2935.10.

State v. Hemmelgarn

2019 Ohio 2034 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 24, 2019

The portion of her testimony quoted above establishes the essential elements of both offenses. Hemmelgarn’s various arguments challenge Susan’s credibility and the believability of her trial testimony. … Cuyahoga No. 105442, 2017-Ohio-8488, and Shine, 2018-Ohio-1972, 113 N.E.3d 160, the trial courts qualified officers as experts in data extraction using Cellebrite.

State v. Wardlaw

2025 Ohio 2221 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2025

Wardlaw waived his right to a jury trial regarding whether he qualified as a sexually violent predator. … Indeed, “statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment are a clearly defined, long-standing exception to the rules of hearsay.” Rosa at ¶ 30.

State v. Smith

2022 Ohio 4687 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2022

Thus, Mast’s statement to Sergeant Moser was clearly testimonial in nature. … Here too Smith has failed to establish that his trial counsel performed deficiently or unreasonably.

In Re Long

24 Ohio App. 3d 32 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1985

R.C. 2151.38(C) establishes the parole provisions for juveniles. … The court recognized that juveniles have an interest in freedom, as do adults: “* * * But that interest must be qualified by the recognition that juveniles, unlike adults, are always in some form of custody. * * * Children

Erwin v. Erwin

2014 Ohio 874 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2014

her marital relationship or the nearest date of value established by the plan administrator, minus the amount of any unpaid loan proceeds on the account. … relationship or the nearest date of value established by the plan administrator.

In re R.Z.

2022 Ohio 3630 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2022

While the juvenile court dismissed the case without prejudice, R.C. 2945.67(A) “clearly affords the state the right to appeal, as a matter of right, any decision that grants a motion to dismiss, without requiring that the … In Greene, a case that focused on whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, the court discussed the difference between probable cause to arrest and probable cause to search, stating that: While the

Skiles v. Bellevue Dev. Corp., S-07-015 (1-11-2008)

2008 Ohio 78 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2008

Knowledge of such matters clearly is not within the ordinary and general experience of lay persons. … The Sawicki decision was issued subsequent to the abrogation of municipal sovereign immunity and prior to the reinstatement of sovereign immunity to state political subdivisions through enactment of R.C.

State ex rel. McDonald v. Indus. Comm.

2021 Ohio 4494 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2021

By analyzing only whether Carpenter qualified for dependency as a surviving spouse, the commission failed to give effect to the plain words of the statute. … The language "member of the family of the deceased employee" is not defined by the statute and is clearly ambiguous.

Watters v. Ross County Children's Services, Unpublished Decision (2-18-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2000

Once immunity is established under R.C. 2744.02 (A)(1), the court must determine whether any of the five exceptions to immunity in subsection (B) apply. Cater v. Cleveland (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 24 , 28 . … RCCS is clearly a political subdivision of the State of Ohio for governmental immunity purposes. See Wilson v. Stark Cty. Dept. of Human Serv. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 450 , 453 .

In re C.H.

2025 Ohio 5351 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2025

(b) The child has been in the agency’s custody for two years or longer and no longer qualifies for temporary custody pursuant to division (D) of section 2151.415 of the Ohio Revised Code. … The statute clearly empowers juvenile courts to “consider any other factors the court deems relevant.” R.C. 2151.414(E)(16).

Evans v. Evans

2013 Ohio 4238 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2013

Secs. 151(c) and 152(a), a taxpayer may claim a dependency exemption deduction with respect to an individual who is either a “qualifying child” or a “qualifying relative.” … Secs. 151(c) and 152(a), K.E. is a qualifying child for purposes of the Parkers’ entitlement to a dependency exemption, and Sonya is not entitled to claim K.E. as a qualifying child or a qualifying relative.

In re Jones

2024 Ohio 408 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2024

The Judgment Entry listed 3 items which the trial court found Appellant failed to establish, to wit: (1) The petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that granting the petition will materially assist … Clearly, like those whom she would be counselling, Mrs.

State v. Simmons

2012 Ohio 3454 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2012

On cross-examination, Bodamer acknowledged that he is not medically qualified to determine whether someone in Robinson’s condition would have definite memory of the incident. … In some instances certain facts can only be established by circumstantial evidence.” Id. at 272.

State ex rel. NHVS Internatl., Inc. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.

2014 Ohio 5522 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2014

Relator does not argue that the written policy established a clear legal right and clear legal duty. … The audit established that the employer's operations are consistent with code 3372.