Case law

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).

Cox v. Waltz

13 Ohio Law. Abs. 364 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1932

It is further well settled in Ohio that the failure of a court to qualify such an instruction as above-quoted by telling the jury that if the evidence offered on behalf of the plaintiff raises a presumption of negligence … no special exception to said instruction and made no request for further instructions or suggestion to the court as to what the further instruction on the subject of contributory negligence should be, it seems to be the established

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.

Pietrangelo v. PolyOne Corp.

2021 Ohio 4239 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2021

With the case now returning to the trial court, the appropriate parties to the case should be clarified and clearly identified. … A qualified nuisance, on the other hand, “is premised upon negligence.” Id. at ¶ 21.

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

State ex rel. Verhovec v. Marietta

2013 Ohio 5414 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2013

Rather, the sanctions were clearly awarded under the frivolous conduct statute, R.C. 2323.51, and Civ.R. 11. Washington App. … The City’s motion was clearly filed within the statutory deadline.

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.

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.

State v. Rice

2019 Ohio 1415 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2019

Standing {¶45} “It is well established the before an Ohio court can consider the merits of a legal claim, the person seeking relief must establish standing to sue.” Moore v. … At the hearing, the victim was granted immunity for her part in the altercation and the trial court found the spousal immunity privilege did not apply. {¶49} The Third District noted that “[a]n appeal is permitted

Filichia v. State

20 Ohio Law. Abs. 113 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 1935

The general rule is well established that in the prosecution of one offense it is not competent to show that the accused .has committed another separate, independent offense for the purpose of showing that he committed the … The author in the note , cites a number of Ohio decisions very positively and clearly supporting the text. *116 In the case of Knight et v State, 54 Oh St, 365, at page 379 of the opinion, Judge Spear quotes the following

State v. Brown

154 N.E.3d 1129 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 2020

He stated that the woman identified herself as Fuqua and that he was able to establish that she had been driving the vehicle. … First, the evidence clearly establishes consortium. Fuqua testified that her relationship with Brown was sexual in nature and that they shared a child together.

Benes v. Hickox Bldg. Co.

55 Ohio Law. Abs. 289 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1949

In the absence of qualifying language indicating a contrary intent, the words “work performed by the contractor hereunder” as used in connection with the amount of the-contractor’s fee in the event of Bond’s non-approval, … It clearly appears that the parties intended the contractor’s fee of $25,000.00 to be subject to Bond’s approval. This was a just and reasonable requirement, entirely consistent with the object of the contract.

In Re Adoption of Shaw

91 Ohio App. 347 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1950

Certainly, the record in the instant case establishes clearly that appellant’s failure to properly support and maintain her child has been intentional not only for two years preceding the filing of the petition but since … Neither appellant nor counsel have in any way attempted to show that the court was wrong in finding the petitioners suitably qualified to care for *356 and rear-the child, nor do they claim that it is not in the best interest

State ex rel. Randstad N. Am., Inc. v. Bullard

251 N.E.3d 733 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2024

Bullard “does qualify for an amputation award for total loss of the left foot” (Stip. … Given well-established case law holding that a claimant may be entitled to scheduled-loss compensation under R.C. 4123.57(B) for either physical loss or functional loss of use of a limb, it is difficult to understand why,

State v. Lewis

110 N.E.3d 607 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2018

course of action in this matter is to request that a professional investigate the state of mind of the defendant at the time of the incident to determine whether he may qualify … It is well-established, however, that when a trial court does not specifically rule on a motion, such as Lewis' motion not to transfer, we presume the motion was not well taken, and therefore, overruled. State v.

In Re Watkins, Chief of Police

88 Ohio App. 251 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 1950

This was a custom established and followed by the mayor since the passage of the ordinance relating to violation of parking laws. After April 1947, a receipt system was established. … The record clearly shows that the chief of police on various occasions objected to the system and requested that a receipt system be established.

Fowerbaugh v. University Hospitals

118 Ohio App. 3d 402 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 1997

We note initially that the syllabus in Ohio appellate court opinions, unlike the syllabus of Ohio Supreme Court opinions, does not establish the law of the case. … “A specialist is a physician who holds himself out [as] specially trained, skilled and qualified in a particular branch of medicine.

State v. Powers

92 Ohio App. 3d 400 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 1993

The decision of a trial court regarding a prosecutor’s motives for exercising a peremptory challenge is a factual determination which will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. State v. … Evid.R. 702 provides: “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill

State v. Flanagan

2012 Ohio 1516 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2012

. {¶13} We begin with the well-established principle that in reviewing felony sentences, we must use a two-step approach. … “First, [we] must examine the sentencing court’s compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.