Case law

Quitifan v. Shafiq

2016 Ohio 4555 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2016

It clearly evinces an agreement by the parties that appellees would pay any additional costs in procuring the property, with the limitation that they be reasonable. … The trial court cited the affidavits of Ranjit and Rachpal that included clearly erroneous assumptions and irrelevant information.

Snay v. Burr

156 N.E.3d 399 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 2020

While the specific issue before the Ohio Supreme Court in those cases was political subdivision immunity, the underlying principles apply to this case regarding what duty, if any, appellees owed to Mr. … The motorist’s own negligence was a defense to holding the homeowners liable on a theory of qualified nuisance, which is not a claim in this case. Id. at *4.

State v. Burns

2011 Ohio 4230 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 2011

No. 83541, 2004-Ohio-4632, ¶ 11, (finding that CMSD is a political subdivision for the purposes of the political subdivision immunity statute). {¶ 19} Furthermore, the jury found Burns guilty of theft in office pursuant … It is “a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against reason and evidence.

Ray v. Ramada Inn North

171 Ohio App. 3d 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2007

Since none of these requirements was satisfied in the present case, the evidence did not qualify for consideration under Civ.R. 56(C). {¶ 48} The documents also were not properly qualified under Evid.R. 803, which provides … There is no possible way that these statements could be deemed ambiguous. {¶ 60} Nonetheless, while Ray clearly did not rent the room, this does not mean that he was a licensee.

Cincinnati v. PE Alms Hill Realty, L.L.C.

2023 Ohio 2784 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2023

by the testimony of either the custodian of the record or some other qualified person.” … Bank and Wilmington Trust failed to establish that he breached the guaranties. We are not persuaded.

State v. Miller

2024 Ohio 5032 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2024

“Two: The sentence [] is clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.” {¶ 3} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. … “‘[E]ven a momentary restraint may qualify as an abduction if it produces the required risk of physical harm to or fear in the victim.’” Id. at ¶ 32, quoting State v.

State v. Pearson

2021 Ohio 520 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2021

“An error qualifies as plain error only if the error is obvious and but for the error the outcome of the proceeding clearly would have been otherwise.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Molen, 2d Dist. … Therefore, Pearson did not satisfy his burden to establish that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different but for the alleged error.

State v. Sanders

2024 Ohio 3365 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 2024

“Privilege” is “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.” … (concluding that a disagreement over how the case should be tried is insufficient to establish a breakdown in communication).

Shimola v. City of Cleveland

65 Ohio App. 3d 457 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 1989

Even if the building were a nuisance and an emergency was established, appellees must show that the nuisance could not be abated by measures other than demolition. … The commissioner shall designate as his deputy a qualified employee in the division who shall exercise all the powers of the commissioner during his absence or disability. Section 3103.01(b).

Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

2012 Ohio 4659 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 2012

The individual must first provide a full written accounting and documentation of the transfer which clearly explains the following: (a) The purpose for transferring the resource; and (b) The attempts … Code 5101:1-39- 07(D), which establish the procedure for rebutting an improper transfer.

Kraemer v. Board of Education

8 Ohio App. 428 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1917

The charge as given by the court might doubtless be construed by the jury as requiring the owner of the property to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the value as fixed by his witnesses, the burden of proof *432 … Such a method is not permitted by the law, because it in effect puts every witness, good, bad and indifferent, on the same plane, no matter how well or illy qualified he may have shown himself to be to fix a proper value.

State v. Stevens

2017 Ohio 498 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2017

Rather, as the two limiting instructions clearly establish, the trial court admitted the evidence for the purposes of identity and modus operandi. … The state bears the burden of establishing a proper chain of custody. In re Swader at *7.

Bernal v. Lindholm

133 Ohio App. 3d 163 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1999

Ian Wilson qualify as an expert witness. Seeberger and Pham were removed as defendants in the second amended complaint. … Lowery was a qualified expert and the county coroner. C.

State v. Callihan

2022 Ohio 2082 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 2022

The Woodworths thereafter abided by the line established by the survey. … Privilege is defined 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.”

State v. Mims

2016 Ohio 3228 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 31, 2016

assistance of counsel at trial in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, section 10 of the Ohio Constitution. {¶40} To establish … (ii) If the offense is a qualifying assault offense, the offender caused serious physical harm to another person while committing the offense, and, if the offense is not a qualifying assault offense, the

Hatton v. Interim Health Care of Columbus, Unpublished Decision (3-27-2007)

2007 Ohio 1418 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2007

Relations Bd. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 181 , 183 . {¶ 13} By Hatton's second assignment of error, she argues that the defense of qualified immunity does not relieve Ferebee and Petrozino of liability for their defamatory statements … Rather, they invoked the defense of qualified privilege.

DiSalle v. Celusta

2025 Ohio 401 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2025

The trial court then qualified appellee to furnish his professional, as well as personal, opinion as to the condition of the apartment when it was vacated. {¶ 11} Appellee unequivocally testified that the unit was … Id.” {¶ 23} As set forth in detail above, the record clearly reflects that appellant wholly failed and refused to lay the requisite foundation in order to have potentially had the mobile phone photographs admitted

Bay v. Gelvick

25 Ohio Law. Abs. 695 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1937

“The plaintiff further says that' pursuant to authority granted by law to it, the plaintiff, acting by and through its duly constituted Planning Commission, and its duly qualified Municipal Council, did on the 5th day of … The legal relations of the various defendants to the city and to the city to the defendants are clearly affected by the ordinance in question, and the legal relations of the city being thus affected, it clearly comes within

State v. Clayton

2018 Ohio 1777 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 7, 2018

The search warrant (Exhibit 2) clearly existed and was available for use at the time of trial. … Moreover, the exhibit does not establish that Judge Peeler's signature was forged.

Standring v. Gerbus Brothers Cons. Co., Unpublished Decision (9-29-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2000

The employment relationship between Standring and Gerbus, an Ohio resident and an Ohio corporation, was clearly located in Ohio although the job site was in Kentucky. … Kentucky, on the other hand, clearly has an interest in ensuring that employers who are in full compliance with all the requirements of its workers' compensation act enjoy the immunities it provides.