Case law

State Ex Rel. Schaefer v. Board of County Commrs.

11 Ohio App. 2d 132 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 1967

Walton Building Atlanta 3, Georgia Phone — Jackson 3-1678 “All bidders qualified as General Contract Bidders may obtain a copy of the complete incinerator proposal from the *138 above company. … Such action is clearly an effort to avoid the salutary provisions of the statute requiring competitive bidding on public contracts, whatever hair-splitting arguments may be made concerning some of the concededly ambiguous

Calabrese v. Judy

2025 Ohio 5284 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 2025

Cocca-Fulton clearly expressed to Rainsberger that she needed to meet with husband privately at the facility, as she does with all clients, which was not a problem. … Rainsberger, was clearly designed to disinherit [wife] by facilitating the creation of an amendment to The Park D.

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, Div. of Fire

2019 Ohio 4009 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2019

The narrative under the heading "Cause Determination" "is clearly investigatory work product whose value to investigators will be lost if it is prematurely disclosed." … This section is clearly investigatory work product whose value to investigators will be lost if it is prematurely disclosed.

McNamara v. Canton, Unpublished Decision (2-7-2005)

2005 Ohio 493 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2005

Clearly appellee's official actions centered upon appellants' request for an A-3 certificate and not the A-2 uses contemplated by appellants. … . {¶ 25} The ability to grant or deny a certificate of occupancy is clearly a governmental function.

In re Estate of Nugent

210 N.E.3d 591 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2023

Nugent is also the beneficiary of a trust previously established by the deceased mother of Decedent and Ms. Nugent.1 (Jgmt. Entry at 2.) At the hearing, Ms. … Whatever "brief" research was done, it was clearly insufficient for purposes of the best interests of Ms. Nugent.

Hanna v. Hanna

93 Ohio App. 270 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 1952

E., 268 , cited and commented on in 14 Ohio Jurisprudence, rather clearly indicated the later trend of Supreme Court decisions. … If the filing of the amended petition related back to the filing of the petition, which we think it did, then clearly no further service or notice was required.

State Ex Rel. Turner v. Eberlin, 07 Be 6 (9-20-2007)

2007 Ohio 5042 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2007

CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT TO RELIEF CLEAR LEGAL DUTY TO PERFORM {¶ 18} Petitioner recites law on the application of the plain language of a rule and urges that the phrase "monthly income" clearly means earnings, not gifts. … However, in order to qualify for a court's deference, the agency's interpretation of its rules and regulations must be consistent with statutory law and the plain language of the rule itself. Id.

Morris v. Mathers

248 N.E.3d 369 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2024

The parties stipulated that $22,500 of the $194,300.64 he requested was loaned or spent prior to the establishment of the trust. … We find the repairs and improvements done prior to the establishment of the trust to be outside the plain language of the trust.

In re Petition for Adoption of Z.H.

2022 Ohio 3926 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2022

The statute is drafted “to require petitioner to establish each of his allegations,” including lack of justifiable cause. Id. … qualify for medical insurance.

State v. Stein

2021 Ohio 761 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2021

He concludes that “one phone call” is insufficient to establish 11. … “[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.” State v. Willis, 12th Dist. Butler No.

Morton International, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

106 Ohio App. 3d 653 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1995

Moreover, we note that the burden of proof is on the insured to establish that the injury or damage under the “occurrence” definition was neither expected nor intended. Id. … Morton asserts that the trespassing and nuisance allegations in the underlying complaints clearly assert a “wrongful entry” and “an invasion of the right of private occupancy.”

Vermilion Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Novotny

2024 Ohio 2946 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2024

A landscaped mounding. {¶ 34} The notice of violation, served on Novotny in June 2021, clearly noted denial of his variance request on March 10, 2020, and stated the township was strictly 14. … zoning violation, however, precludes his defenses or collateral attack on the violation. {¶ 36} “A decision of an administrative body which is not timely appealed, see R.C. 2506.01 and 2506.07, becomes final and immune

State v. Flanik

2024 Ohio 1689 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 2, 2024

Even if the challenged statements do not qualify as excited utterances, we find no material prejudice resulted. … Because appellant has not established that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, the eighth assignment of error is overruled.

York v. Mayfield Neurological Institute, Inc.

133 Ohio App. 3d 777 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1999

This causal connection is mandatory in order to establish a prima facie case of lack of informed consent. … As noted, the evidence does not clearly establish how a reasonable trier of fact would answer the proposed interrogatory.

Chase Bank, USA v. Curren

191 Ohio App. 3d 507 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2010

Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant has established (1) that there is no genuine issue of material fact, (2) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving … These records might have qualified for the business-records exception to the hearsay rule, see Evid.R. 803(6), but Alcaraz’s affidavit failed to lay the proper foundation for their admissibility. {¶ 21} Evid.R.

State v. Laghaoui

114 N.E.3d 249 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2018

O'Donnell's testimony "clearly established" that Laghaoui understood the "nature of the proceedings and the objective of these proceedings." … witness' testimony either relates to matters beyond the knowledge or experience possessed by lay persons or dispels a misconception common among lay persons; (B) The witness is qualified

State v. Mathis

2019 Ohio 3654 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2019

Evid.R. 701 permits a lay witness to offer opinion testimony despite not having been qualified as an expert. See, e.g., Tinkham v. … Unless a trial court clearly abuses that discretion, and thereby causes a defendant material prejudice, this court will not disturb such a determination. Id.

State v. Stevens

224 N.E.3d 624 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2023

But even in cases where the defendant has established a violation of rights Hocking App. … Statements qualify as testimonial if they have a “primary purpose” of “establish[ing] or prov[ing] past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” Davis v.

Stanton v. University Hospitals Health System, Inc.

166 Ohio App. 3d 758 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 11, 2006

After requesting Roberts’s deposition, UHHS Bedford submitted that it sought her deposition solely to establish bias and challenge the credibility of the expert witnesses. {¶ 12} In conjunction with Civ.R. 26(C), Cuyahoga … Aiello’s deposition clearly indicated that his expert report contained words chosen by someone else and that “there were many things that were better expressed by someone who knows how to do this.”

Martz v. Floral Products Co.

17 Ohio Law. Abs. 118 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 1934

While this is a qualified statement, it is a statement of fact.” … The facts descriptive of appellee’s conduct on this occasion are not fully and clearly found in the special verdict.