Case law

Buoscio v. McFaul, Unpublished Decision (8-2-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2001

Appellant's affidavit clearly fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 . … may be asserted to establish nonliability: * * * (6) * * * [An] employee is immune from liability unless one of the following applies: (a) His acts or omissions were manifestly outside the scope of his employment or official

Sayoc v. Sayoc

2016 Ohio 1199 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2016

to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established … Thus, we “assume the role of an additional trier of fact and review the record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether the trier of fact ‘clearly lost

CosmetiCredit, L.L.C. v. World Fin. Network Natl. Bank

2014 Ohio 5301 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 2014

Our agreement clearly states that the Cardholder may only be charged for the Plan-approved Goods and/or Services received from a Provider." … CosmetiCredit's providers had not executed contracts that complied with the program agreement and, therefore, did not qualify.

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.

Ravenscraft v. Durrani

2025 Ohio 2900 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2025

He also explained that, “[q]uite clearly, as based on the postoperative notes of Dr. … Tayeb’s testimony was the only testimony which established that Dr.

State v. Grady

2019 Ohio 1942 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 20, 2019

Clear and convincing evidence is that “‘which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to -3- Case No. 16-18-11 be established … Under the plain error standard, “the appellant must demonstrate that the outcome of his trial would clearly have been different but for the trial court's errors.” Id., citing State v.

Radenbaugh v. Motorists Insurance Companies

86 Ohio App. 3d 836 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1993

Accordingly, argue the Radenbaughs, the trial court was correct in awarding the additional $200,000, thereby establishing a $500,000 total obligation on the part of Motorists. … Additionally, we note that the coverage provided by the Radenbaughs’ underinsured motorist policy is for “bodily injury” caused by anyone qualifying as “underinsured.”

State v. Noble

2021 Ohio 1062 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2021

That provision specifies that, where an offender is being sentenced for more than one felony, if one or more of the felonies is a qualifying felony of the first or second degree, and some or all of the prison terms imposed … Noble to ten years minimum for his most serious qualifying felony, Count 6, attempted murder, a first-degree felony, and a definite term of three years for the firearm specification to run consecutive to concurrent terms

Mays v. Knolls Apartment Complex

2023 Ohio 391 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2023

. {¶ 4} On October 11, 2021, Miami Township filed a motion to dismiss based on its immunity from liability under R.C. Chap. 2744. … The relevant issue is not whether Mays was distracted; it is whether the defect was capable of being observed, and it clearly was.

In re Z.D.

2015 Ohio 5262 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2015

Subsequent to the initial contact, R.D. and K.D. completed the process to qualify for the placement and expressed a desire to adopt the children. … The children also have cousins in the Columbus area and supportive counseling services have already been established. {¶46} The manifest weight of the evidence is clearly and convincingly in support of the trial

Sullivan-White v. Aukland

205 N.E.3d 1147 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2023

under the policy and prejudiced State Farm’s subrogation rights, thus she was not entitled to UM/UIM benefits. {¶ 24} The court also found the dismissal of appellant’s claims against the Auklands, with prejudice, clearly … Law {¶ 33} It is well-established that an order denying a summary judgment motion is subject to revision upon a motion for reconsideration, a renewed motion for summary judgment or the court’s own power to reconsider

Horst v. First National Bank

4 Ohio App. Unrep. 146 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 1990

Clearly, the legislature intended to extend to an ante-mortemjudgment a high level of integrity. … R. 60(B) relief in forcible entry and detainer provisions: "One situation in which the Civil Rules would be clearly inapplicable is when the proceeding is established by a statute which also sets out specific procedures to

Botkin v. Univ. of Cincinnati C.O.M., Unpublished Decision (3-15-2005)

2005 Ohio 1122 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2005

Hsu received an annual starting salary of $15,000 from the university, and, in 1997, she earned $129,032.88 from the Foundation for Obstetrics and Gynecology, the departmental practice plan established to compensate faculty … Hsu's immunity.

H. S. Hamburger Co. v. Miller Brothers & Co.

35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 248 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 1916

The statute was enacted to protect men in their property rights and it should be enforced unless in cases clearly within some of the well established exceptions.” … of some of the terms of the written agreement, declares upon the writing qualified by the oral variation, he can not prevail.

Ex Parte Elliott

114 Ohio App. 533 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 1961

The effect on this court of the Maryland decree under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution has not been clearly decided. Three United States Supreme Court cases bear on the matter. … But it is clear “that the state of the forum has at least as much leeway to disregard the judgment, to qualify it, or to depart from it as does the state where it was rendered. ’ ’ See Halvey, supra, at 615 , and Kovacs,

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. BPS Co.

23 Ohio App. 3d 56 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 1985

Such testimony clearly falls within the exclusion provided for in Evid. R. 408. Plaintiff argues that the testimony was properly admitted because the claim was not in dispute. … The sources of the information relied on by both adjusters to establish the damages were not offered for the purpose of establishing the truth of the information received — it merely establishes the sources upon which the

State v. Collins

2015 Ohio 3710 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2015

establishment. … Based on the record, we cannot clearly and convincingly find the trial court failed to consider appellant's present or future ability to pay financial sanctions or that such an order was clearly and convincingly contrary

Ballard v. State

2012 Ohio 3086 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 2012

He contends the evidence he submitted to establish the requirements of R.C. 2743.48(A) was sufficient to withstand the state’s motion. … Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 701 N.E.2d 1002 (1998); R.C. 2305.02. {¶23} A judgment of acquittal is insufficient; the petitioner seeking to establish a claim for wrongful imprisonment must produce evidence to establish

State v. Mann

2025 Ohio 5467 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2025

R.C. 2925.11. {¶13} The written plea agreements in all the cases contained a sentencing recommendation from the State that Appellant undergo a Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) and receive “community control if qualified … “[s]ome people reach the point where we just have to put them away, warehouse them to prevent them from having additional criminal conduct, hurting somebody, or hurting themselves.” {¶25} First, “[i]t is well-established

Village of Monroeville v. Ward

21 Ohio App. 2d 17 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 1969

The legislative power will generally be deemed ample to authorize enactment of a law, unless the legislative discretion has been qualified or restricted by the constitution in reference to the subject matter in question. … The General Assembly is clearly granted the power to create courts inferior to the Supreme Court. There is no limitation here on the General Assembly.