Case law

Hudson Distributors, Inc. v. Upjohn Co.

117 Ohio App. 207 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 1961

caused notice of these contracts and the prices therein established to be served on the plaintiff. … This is clearly shown by the true basic theory of the new acts of Virginia and Ohio.

State v. Reynolds

2020 Ohio 942 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2020

In this case, the court applied the exception to Reynolds and imposed a prison term. {¶10} This court has already determined that the record must establish that the physical harm was caused by the failure to stop … Jones was presumptively ineligible for a prison term for the fifth- degree felony of failure to stop, which was not an offense of violence or a qualifying assault offense.

Krichner v. Shooters on the Water, Inc.

167 Ohio App. 3d 708 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2006

Plaintiff claims that even though the city of Cleveland had exempted the Shooters dock from the provisions of the OBBC, the lack of a handrail qualifies as a “serious hazard,” requiring Shooters to retrofit the dock to conform … became intoxicated at the establishment of a liquor permit holder.

State v. Wilson

2023 Ohio 1042 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2023

The circumstantial evidence establishing Wilson to be the individual firing the gunshots from the vehicle was overwhelming. B. … Having reviewed the record and having weighed the evidence and all reasonable inferences, we do not find that the trier of fact “clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction

Maleky v. Ohio State Univ., Office of Compliance & Integrity

2024 Ohio 5825 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2024

Moreover, it is unclear which requested public records were disregarded by the judge, and the reasons for such decisions, and the rules guiding such actions are not clearly explained … The conclusion in Ellis that employee records that “tangentially relate[]” to students can still qualify for the employee record exception, despite the self- evident fact that such records do not “relate exclusively” to the

State v. Gordon

155 Ohio App. 3d 357 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2003

(1995), 24 Cap.U.L.Rev. 687. {¶ 63} Clearly, if the focus of “per se” or “prohibited level” offenses was the “impairment” of the individual, the defendant’s assignment of error, in light of Dr. … The director shall approve satisfacto *367 ry techniques or methods, ascertain the qualifications of individuals to conduct such analyses, and issue permits to qualified persons authorizing them to perform such analyses.

State v. Brock

2025 Ohio 2538 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2025

“[P]rejudice not directed personally at the accused or materially affecting the fairness of the trial does not automatically qualify for dismissal.” … In resolving this issue in favor of the State and finding Brock guilty, the jury did not clearly lose its way.

State v. Price

2023 Ohio 3790 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 2023

Witness testimony established that Moore, Price, and Hubbard had a history of disagreements. … This is not the exceptional case where the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, Price’s second assignment of error is overruled.

State v. Holman

2026 Ohio 1793 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 15, 2026

The trial court’s finding will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. Herring at ¶ 68. 2. … The State objected, arguing that the question was irrelevant, Meece was not an expert qualified to testify about male anatomy, and Evid.R. 403 precluded this evidence.

Siliko v. Miami Univ.

2022 Ohio 4133 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2022

The court noted that six of the student-plaintiffs had been granted exemptions, a seventh student-plaintiff qualified for an exemption if one was sought, and the eighth student-plaintiff did not qualify for an exemption … R.C. 3339.01 establishes Miami University's Board of Trustees.

Bradley v. Hill

2020 Ohio 2682 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2020

The parties submitted Agreed Judgment Entries establishing a Shared Parenting Plan with a deviation from the child support as calculated pursuant to the Ohio Child Support Guidelines. … Shared Parenting Plan, Aug, 20, 2016, p.7 {¶4} While the Parenting Plan included the $0.00 support order qualified by the Deviation Entry, the Shared Plan also contained the following provision ordering Bradley

State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (3-10-2004)

2004 Ohio 1130 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2004

Rather, he argued (1) Detective Rourke was not qualified to testify as an expert and (2) Detective Rourke failed to establish that he tested the marihuana in a manner accepted by the Revised Code. … If we find that the fact finder clearly lost its way, we must reverse the conviction and order a new trial. Id .

In Re D. J., 21906 (12-14-2007)

2007 Ohio 6677 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2007

Sandra further contends that the court should have granted custody to a qualified relative. {¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court acted appropriately and in the best interests of the child. … The evidence clearly and convincingly showed that a grant of permanent custody to MCCS was in D.J.'s best interest.

MacMurray v. Mayo, 07ap-38 (12-27-2007)

2007 Ohio 6998 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2007

Using defendant's own terminology, the exemption applies to "exclusive homemakers," a category for which defendant admits he does not necessarily qualify. (Defendant's brief, 8.) … While defendant does not cite any particular factor, he clearly suggests the trial court should have considered the disparity in *Page 15 income between the parties. See R.C. 3119.23 (G).

State v. Shiveley

2022 Ohio 4036 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2022

actual harm," or otherwise be aware of appellant's conduct, and because the victims did not submit statements or speak at sentencing, there is no evidence of "actual harm." {¶ 12} This assertion ignores the well-established … times his accounts were shut down. {¶ 18} Appellant further argues that based on the plain language of the terms "great" and "unusual," the harm caused to the children depicted in the videos and images does not qualify

Wuerth v. Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C.

225 N.E.3d 356 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2023

“[A] consumer may qualify for class-action status only when a supplier acted in the face of prior notice that its conduct was deceptive or unconscionable.” Marrone v. … Therefore, at issue is whether, as to the unjust enrichment claims, the trial court erred in finding that appellees established Civ.R. 23(B)(3)’s requirement that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate

Gibson v. Soin

2022 Ohio 1113 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 2022

But the bottom line is that when it comes to the expertise to know when and – when or when not a patient should go through any surgery if there are cardiac issues is clearly and purely and only in … Utlak did not establish that (1) the standard of care and practice for a cardiologist upon referral and the standard of care for Defendants with respect to presurgical cardiac testing were similar and (2) Dr.

Holtzman v. Darby

28 Ohio Law. Abs. 279 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1938

The use to which the defendants thereafter put the survey and plat clearly- exemplifies that which constitutes a publication. … These contentions may be well made and may clearly appear if set up in an answer and met by the proof, so that eventually the plaintiff may fail entirely upon his own averments or it may be established that his action is

State v. Brennco, Inc.

2015 Ohio 467 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2015

Yet, the only reading of the statute, clearly and unambiguously dictates that the monetary limits do not apply to criminal cases where there is no “amount claimed by any party” to be limited. … If the legislative intent is clearly expressed, “ ‘the statute may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or abridged; significance and effect should, if possible, be accorded to every word, phrase

Republic Steel Corp. v. Hailey

30 Ohio App. 3d 103 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1986

Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792 , the Supreme Court established standards and procedures for evaluating discriminatory discharge claims. First, the complainant must establish a prima fade case of sex discrimination. … Nor does she contend that this employer regularly discriminated against women employees, and the record clearly denies such a conclusion.