Case law

In re Estate of Taylor

2024 Ohio 1496 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2024

In this context, our own district has agreed that “proceedings in probate court generally qualify as ‘special proceedings’ under the statute.” … The probate court has also established fees for various matters. See https:// www.mcohio.org/474/Fees (accessed on March 14, 2024).

Hunt v. City of E. Cleveland

128 N.E.3d 265 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2019

Accordingly, appellants waived all but plain error, which has not been established here. See, e.g., Sanderfer, 8th Dist. … that the juror No. 5’s actions in providing tissues to two crying witnesses “clearly affected the jury verdict.”

Eastley v. Volkman

2010 Ohio 4771 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2010

But because the estate did not allege that Huffman qualified as one of the enumerated medical providers in R.C. 2305.113(E)(3), its ordinary negligence claim against her does not qualify as a “medical claim” under Scioto … If we presume the estate established by a preponderance of the evidence that Volkman’s prescriptions Scioto App.

State v. Taylor

2014 Ohio 3820 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 2014

. ¶ 53 (“Where there is no evidence to show that the state was aware that the witness would testify in a different manner than her prior statements, the element of surprise is established”). {¶16} Moreover, Walker … ’s statement that appellant was not the driver of the motorcycle was clearly in contradiction of the state’s trial position.

State v. Colucci

27 Ohio Law. Abs. 509 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1938

It is one of those questions which are frequently found in transcripts of testimony, the ruling upon which is clearly within the latitude extended to a trial judge. … However, Doctor Henrie qualified as an expert. The quality of his testimony was for the jury.

Steiner v. Roberts

72 Ohio Law. Abs. 391 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 1955

At the time of the sale, there was in force and effect the Federal Housing and Rent Act of 1947, which established maximum prices for rental housing accommodations within the city of Cleveland, Ohio, including the four-suite … In failing to sustain objections to irrelevant cross-examination, clearly intended to excite the prejudices of the jury. “14.

State v. Phelps

192 Ohio App. 3d 484 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2011

In exchange for testifying against defendant, Laura was given immunity, and the state dismissed the death-penalty specification against defendant. {¶ 28} On May 8, 1995, Laura testified to the following at defendant’s trial … testimony should be admitted: *492 {¶ 40} “(a) The hypnosis session should be conducted by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist trained in the use of hypnosis, to ensure the most accurate recall possible. {¶ 41} “(b) The qualified

State v. Stankorb

2023 Ohio 3808 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2023

He maintains that the state’s evidence failed to establish that he was under the influence of alcohol. … In a manifest-weight challenge, we “ ‘review the entire record, weigh the evidence, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage

Welch v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

117 Ohio App. 160 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1961

After direct testimony which clearly established that Tracy was a proper subject of cross-examination under Section *163 2317.52, Revised Code, the plaintiff again requested that he be permitted to proceed as upon cross-examination … Tbe evidence presented was clearly incapable of elevating tbe status of the decedent to that of an invitee.

Borges v. Everdry Waterproofing of Wapakoneta, Inc.

95 Ohio App. 3d 175 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1994

As the appellee asserts in his brief, Civ.R. 54(C) is qualified by an exception in Civ.R. 1(C), which declares that the Civil Rules “to the extent that they would by their nature be clearly inapplicable, shall not apply to … However, the mandate of Civ.R. 54(C) supersedes the more liberal pleading provisions contained in Civ.R. 15(B), unless the facts present a compelling reason to establish an exception to the limitation. Smolik v.

In Re Estate of Adams

71 Ohio App. 113 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1942

Adams, that he qualified and administered the estate, and that he was discharged as administrator 15 years before he was appointed administrator de bonis non of the same estate. He had a brother by the name of George E. … Adams as administrator have been established by competent evidence, and that said causes for removal are true; that said Carl E.

Cleveland v. Lowery

2016 Ohio 5626 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2016

Lewis’s testimony tends to establish that appellant did possess a firearm at that time. This also fits within one of the exceptions listed in Evid.R. 404(B) — lack of mistake. … court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly

Anderson v. Discount Drug Mart, Inc.

169 N.E.3d 252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 2021

(2) The following are examples of the types of material exclusions, reservations, limitations, modifications, or conditions of offers which must be clearly stated: *** (g) If there is a minimum … Anderson contends that “[b]y telling consumers that they would qualify for the discount by buying a specific multiple number of product units, but withholding [from] them that they would also qualify for the same discount

State v. Mills

2012 Ohio 438 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2012

THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION TO VACATE RESTITUTION ORDER AS VOID DUE TO THE TRIAL COURT ENTERING A RESTITUTION ORDER SUBSEQUENT TO THE SENTENCING AND FOR A DISMISSED COUNT, AND FAILING TO HOLD A REQUIRED HEARING TO ESTABLISH … In addition, all four counts to which appellant pled occurred on separate days and would not qualify as the same conduct. See, State v.

State v. Holmes

2015 Ohio 5050 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2015

Specifically, Holmes argues that there was not sufficient evidence presented that the two-by-four could qualify as a deadly weapon. … Holmes contends that it was not established that the two-by-four could cause death, or that it could cause death being thrown rather than used as a bludgeon.

Paranthaman v. State Auto Property & Cas. Ins. Co.

2014 Ohio 4948 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2014

No. 01AP-458 (Mar. 28, 2002). {¶ 30} Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, a rebuttable presumption shifts the burden to the defendant to "articulate clearly a legitimate, nondiscriminatory … Generally, the denial of a pay raise qualifies as an adverse employment action. Canady at ¶ 27.

Lynch v. Dept. of Human Serv., Unpublished Decision (4-23-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1999

"[M]ere negligence is not converted into wanton misconduct unless the evidence establishes a disposition to perversity on the part of the tortfeasor." Roszman v. … I have involved the serious infringement of a clearly preexisting right to bring suit . . . . The immunity of the defendants in this case is not such an infringement of a preexisting right.

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

196 N.E.3d 896 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2022

An instructional QIT packet was attached, clearly stating a person with income over that amount would not become eligible until a valid QIT was executed and a financial account for the trust was established for the deposit … The title of the QIT account must clearly identify it as a QIT account in the name of the individual.”

Trafis v. Cuyahoga Cty., Unpublished Decision (9-30-2005)

2005 Ohio 5330 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2005

That is, a reasonable reading of Section 3, Article III is that, by establishing the requirements for membership on council, this charter provision necessarily establishes the requirements for being a candidate for council … More importantly, this demonstrates that the Board did not clearly disregard the applicable charter provision.

State v. Bangera

2016 Ohio 4596 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2016

Appellant argues the detective intentionally omitted this fact in an effort to establish probable cause when none existed. … The totality of the circumstances clearly supported the warrant which eventually issued. {¶94} In the present case there was the suspicion of money laundering, provided by the U.S.