Case law

Defiance Cty. Bd. of Health v. McCalla

2012 Ohio 4107 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2012

Miller v. … Brown v. Dayton Malleable, 1 Ohio St.3d 151, 153 (1982). -18- Case No. 4-12-07 appropriate amount of a fine.

Graves v. Sylvania Vil. School Dist.

24 Ohio App. 428 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 1927

the Board but which had not been collected. … State ex v. Maharry, 97 OS. 272 . 2. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the statute was comprehensive enough to justify actions not only against public officers but against private persons.

State ex rel. Moorhead v. Bd. of Ohio Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys.

2014 Ohio 2499 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2014

BROWN and O'GRADY, JJ., concur. … Where there is some evidence in the record to support the board's decision, the board has not abused its discretion. State ex rel. Marchiano v. School Emps. Retirement Sys., 121 Ohio St.3d 139, 2009-Ohio-307.

Brown v. Travelers Insurance, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2003)

2003 Ohio 6151 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2003

. {¶ 5} I concur with the majority as to its analysis and disposition of cross-appellant Tara Brown's assignments of error. 1 This is a different analysis for determining who is an insured when UM/UIM coverage arises by operation

Meadowwood Manor v. Ohio Dept. of Health, Ca2006-08-010 (4-30-2007)

2007 Ohio 2067 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2007

Pierce v. Brown Publishing Co. , Fayette App. No. CA2006-07-027, 2007-Ohio-1657 . A trial court's decision awarding summary judgment is reviewed de novo on appeal. Id. … D.A.B.E., Inc. v. Toledo-Lucas County Board of Health , 96 Ohio St.3d 250 , 2002-Ohio-4172 , ¶ 19 .

State v. Browning

2022 Ohio 386 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2022

[Cite as State v. Browning, 2022-Ohio-386.] … We sustain Browning's first assignment of error. V.

Jones v. Delaware City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

2013 Ohio 3907 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2013

Browning–Ferris Inds. of Ohio, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 321, 474 N.E .2d 271 (1984). A fact is material if it affects the outcome of the case under the applicable substantive law. Russell v. … No. 10MA19, 2011-Ohio-1466 (determining that operating a lawnmower without the required discharge chute could constitute a physical defect); Yeater v. Board of Ed. LaBrae School Dist., 11th Dist.

Dixon v. Northridge Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2007-Ca-101 (6-5-2008)

2008 Ohio 2744 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2008

The court may not resolve ambiguities in the evidence presented, Inland Refuse Transfer Company v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Ohio, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 321 . … Alexander v.

Tritt v. Judd's Moving & Storage, Inc.

62 Ohio App. 3d 206 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 1990

Moreover, defendant argues that the disputed evidence was proper as "rebutting evidence" as that term is defined in Nickey v. Brown (1982), 7 Ohio App. 3d 32 . … Brown (1935), 129 Ohio St. 512 .

Brown v. Travelers Insurance, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2003)

2003 Ohio 6150 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2003

Malone v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Xenia Township, 06-Ca-62 (7-27-2007)

2007 Ohio 3812 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2007

Ledford v. … V {¶ 26} The Third Assignment of Error raised by the Malones provides: {¶ 27} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REVIEWING THE VALIDITY OF THE DECISION OF THE XENIA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A COMPLETE

Hart v. Hudson

2010 Ohio 5954 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2010

See, also, Brown v. Bradshaw, 126 Ohio St.3d 265, 2010-Ohio-3758, at ¶1; Smith v. Walker, 83 Ohio St.3d 431, 432, 1998-Ohio-30; Thomas v. Collins, 74 Ohio St.3d 413, 413-414, 1996-Ohio-280. … See id. at ¶66, citing State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, at ¶34; State v. Barker, Cuyahoga App. No. 93574, 2010-Ohio-4480, at ¶4-8; State v. Redwine, Brown App. No.

Perotti v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

61 Ohio App. 3d 86 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 1989

In Lassiter v. … “The Medical Review Board made a decision pursuant to the institution’s policies that, in plaintiff’s case, non-controlled pain relievers were a preferred method of treatment. As stated in Bell v.

Grant v. Grant

60 Ohio App. 2d 277 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 6, 1977

(Law v. Law, 64 Ohio St. 369 ; Newman v. Newman, 161 Ohio St. 247 , and Mozden v. Mozden, 162 Ohio St. 169 , modified.)” … Brown and Connors, JJ., concur. 1 Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the syllabus in Robrock, supra, read: “4.

Hercules LED, L.L.C. v. Drabiski

202 N.E.3d 808 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2022

Before Drabiski left his employment with Hercules, Brown recalls working on a sales proposal in an effort to sell LED lighting to Liberty Township. Drabiski may have helped Brown with the bid. … And after Drabiski left his employment with Hercules, Brown saw him at a Liberty Township board meeting at which Drabiski was representing his new employer, and during the meeting, the township reviewed the companies’ competing

Sheahan v. Department of Liquor Control

44 Ohio App. 2d 393 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 1974

Brown, J. Defendant Ohio Department of Liquor Control appeals from the final order of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, in the divorce and child support action of Sheahan v. … Williams, v.

Cool v. Frenchko

200 N.E.3d 562 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2022

Wilkins v. Village of Harrisburg, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-1028, 2015-Ohio-5472, ¶ 38. See Brown v. Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn., 10th Dist. … Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, ¶ 48. {¶ 31} R.C. 3501.11 authorizes a board of elections to investigate and perform certain duties, but does not confer standing upon Cool.

Gillespie v. Loge

48 Ohio App. 463 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 1933

The case of Kling, Admr, etc. v Bordner, 65 Oh St, 86, and Newbold et v Michael et, 110 Oh St, 588, construing the statute of frauds and the law applicable to such cases are largely relied upon by those opposed to the enforcement … The court states in the opinion: “While both cases, Shahan v Swan, and Kling v Bordner, supra, recognize that suits in equity may sometimes be maintained where parol promise and performance may take a case out of the statute

Slosar v. Homestead Creek Homeowners Assoc., Inc.

2011 Ohio 4420 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2011

A party challenging a board of directors’ decision bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that the decision was a proper exercise of the business judgment of the board.” Gries Sports Ent., Inc. v. … Apel v.

Chiles v. Brown, L-07-1340 (9-19-2008)

2008 Ohio 4740 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2008

Brown v. Executive 200, Inc. (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 250 , 253 . … Cross v. Ledford (1954), 161 Ohio St. 469 , paragraph three of syllabus. {¶ 25} The standard of review of a trial court's finding of contempt is abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Ventrone v.