Case law

Byer v. Lucas, 08-No-351 (3-9-2009)

2009 Ohio 1022 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2009

Byer contends the trial court erred in finding that Lucas was exempt from liability under the recreational user immunity statute, R.C. 1533.181 . … It is well established that the existence of a duty is a question of law for the court to decide on a case-by-case basis." (Emphasis added.) Wilson v. Lafferty Volunteer Fire Dept. (Nov. 29, 2001), 7th Dist.

State v. Hart

2020 Ohio 1640 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2020

Ohio courts have held that Evid.R. 410 only applies to plea negotiations and where no plea is entered, as in the case of a grant of immunity, then the exclusionary provisions of Evid.R. 410 do not apply. See State v. … ’ but not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established

State v. Rudolph

2023 Ohio 1040 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2023

The court noted that the record did not establish that Massien breached a duty of trust to any patient or that any patient was harmed as a result of her actions. Id. at ¶ 36. … It is well established that a trial court cannot reconsider a valid final judgment in a criminal case. See, e.g., State v.

Celina Mutual Ins. Co. v. Sadler

6 Ohio App. 2d 161 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 25, 1966

Chames, 170 Ohio St. 209 , at 213: “The use of the declaratory judgment action to establish whether there was coverage under the provisions of a liability insurance policy has often been resorted to by insurers in recent … It has been held that the cited provisions of the Ohio statute are made a part of every liability policy in Ohio, that while the word “subrogation” does not appear in the statute the principle of subrogation is clearly involved

Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Koby

124 Ohio App. 3d 174 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1997

Under the totality of the circumstances, it appears that Koby has established a separate residence in Texas. … In summary, having analyzed the pertinent case authorities, and construing the term “resident” liberally and in favor of the insured, we hold that Koby qualifies as a resident of his parents’ household.

Pierce v. Louis Elec.

2013 Ohio 4151 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2013

A reviewing court must determine whether the finder of fact, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, clearly lost his way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial … We have held on numerous occasions that where an appellant fails to provide a transcript of the original hearing before the magistrate for the trial court's review, the magistrate's findings of fact are considered established

Bakos v. Takach

14 Ohio App. 370 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 1921

To justify the application of this rule of law the trust and the abuse of it should be clearly established. We think that has been done in this case. … We hold that the evidence clearly establishes that the Congregation has been Uniat from the beginning, and never Orthodox until the coming of the present priest; that the property was so dedicated and used, there being no

State v. Murphy

2014 Ohio 3368 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2014

We disagree. {¶29} 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. State v. … Stalling was an expert in establishing the speed of the vehicles.

State v. Henry

37 Ohio App. 3d 3 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1987

These cases clearly establish that if evidence of guilt from sources other than statements by Hill or Walker is so overwhelming that appellant’s guilt is clear beyond a reasonable doubt, the use of the statements constitutes … If it does so qualify, the trial court should then conduct an in camera inspection pursuant to Crim. R. 16(B)(1)(g).

Novy v. Ferrera

2014 Ohio 1776 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2014

Hovanscek was qualified as an expert to render such opinion, when it failed to allow Mr. … weight of the evidence, 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

State v. Collier

131 Ohio App. 3d 530 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1998

In his third assignment of error, appellant argues: “The trial court erred in failing to acquit appellant of the theft in office charges in the absence of evidence establishing that appellant was a public official.” … Law enforcement officers are clearly public officials. However, special constables are omitted from the definition of law enforcement officers, while constables are not.

Dunn v. Bruzzese

172 Ohio App. 3d 320 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2007

These are two distinct ways of establishing liability. *329 {¶ 21} A plaintiff must establish the following four elements to prove a claim of promissory estoppel: (1) a clear and unambiguous promise; (2) reliance on the promise … Id. {¶ 59} Judge Bruzzese argues that Dunn cannot establish pretext because she cannot produce any evidence of discrimination other than the evidence that established her prima facie case of age discrimination.

State v. Owens

2016 Ohio 3092 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 20, 2016

The State did not establish that the blood draw was performed within the three hour time limit[.] b. … L-13-1081, 2014-Ohio-425, ¶ 11: R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a dispute[d] sentence if it clearly and convincingly

Bell v. Cuyahoga Community College

129 Ohio App. 3d 461 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1998

To establish a claim brought under R.C. … Although Kerans created the common-law tort of sexual harassment, it did not clearly define the elements of this cause of action.

Harvey v. Sys. Effect, L.L.C.

154 N.E.3d 293 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2020

However, it is very difficult to see anything clearly in the slide.  -11- Harvey that there were termites in the home. … Qualified Privilege {¶ 78} Harvey’s final assignment of error is that: The Trial Court Erred in Asserting That Qualifying Privilege Could Protect Appellees' Conduct. {¶ 79} Under this

State v. Beckley

2025 Ohio 4829 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2025

To establish plain error, Beckley must demonstrate an “obvious error that affected the outcome of his case.” … Beckley does not meet the definition of a qualifying adult because of his criminal history.

Fay v. Motorists Insurance

80 Ohio App. 3d 63 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 18, 1992

The basis of State Farm’s position was set forth in a footnote, as follows: “State Farm admits that Sexton qualifies as an insured under its definition (1). … Fay, represented and established to his own insurance company that Michael was a resident in the father’s household at the time of his death, thus enabling the father to recover under his own uninsured motorist coverage.

In re Z.S.

2014 Ohio 3748 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2014

Roediger is exceptionally qualified to testify as an expert in the instant case. Dr. … “The plain error doctrine provides for the correction of errors clearly apparent on their face and prejudicial to the complaining party even though the complaining party failed to object to the error at trial.”

A.A. v. F.A.

2019 Ohio 1706 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 3, 2019

“This Court may not reverse the judgment of the trial court on the basis of plain error, unless appellant has established that the outcome of trial clearly would have been different but for the alleged error.” … We may only review those orders that are final and appealable and the magistrate’s decision in this matter does not qualify as a final order as defined in R.C. 2505.02.

Cooper v. Metal Sales Manufacturing Corp.

104 Ohio App. 3d 34 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 15, 1995

Subsequently, he cooperated with the federal government’s investigation of TRW, and, in return, was granted immunity from prosecution. … The jury in Russ clearly understood that its focus was not to be on the termination itself, but rather the circumstances of the entire episode.