Case law

State v. Hobbs

59 Ohio App. 274 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1937

These confessions also clearly indicate that the defendants were engaged in attempting to break and enter the building referred to in the special charge and in the bill of particulars. … Proof of all the elements stated in the special charge would not establish an attempt to perpetrate a burglary. That is conceded by the state.

State v. McMahon

2025 Ohio 11 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 3, 2025

Second, the trial testimony of N.B. and B.M. established that McMahon picked up and grabbed the child and then unsuccessfully tried to do so again. {¶ 16} It appears from the two witnesses’ testimony that McMahon … guilty to a child-victim oriented offense and who is not within either category of child-victim offender described in division (F)(2) or (G)(2) of this section.” {¶ 23} The foregoing statute required McMahon to qualify

State v. Flores-Lopez

2017 Ohio 690 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2017

“In light of the inherent coercion involved in custodial interrogation, Miranda established ‘a set of prophylactic measures’ to safeguard the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.” State v. … this situation, a court reviews “ ‘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

HSBC Bank U.S.A., Natl. Assn. v. Gill

2019 Ohio 2814 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 2019

4  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 64, 752 N.E.2d 904 (2001): “The trial court has broad discretion in the admission of evidence, and unless it has clearly … the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make [such records], all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified

State v. Azali

2023 Ohio 4643 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2023

However, the arguments under this assignment of error seek to establish that the State failed to carry the burden of establishing that Azali did not act in self-defense. … Since he has failed to establish that this footage was material evidence, Azali must demonstrate that the state acted in bad faith to establish a due process violation.

Scanlon v. Scanlon

2013 Ohio 2694 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2013

Scanlon (“Thomas”), established the Thomas P. Scanlon Family Trust (“trust”), with Thomas as the donor and trustee. Thomas died in February 2005. … Trustee and any Successor Trustee * * * shall serve without bond, and in addition to those powers granted by law, and until actual distribution of the trust property, shall have the following rights, powers, duties, and immunities

State v. Rentschler

223 N.E.3d 957 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2023

Such charge, or other charge or instruction provided for in this section, when so written and given, shall not be orally qualified, modified, or explained to the jury by the court. … “An error qualifies as ‘plain error’ only if it is obvious and but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Barnhart, 3d Dist.

State v. Taylor

2015 Ohio 403 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2015

For example, an accomplice may be offered immunity in exchange for testimony and never be indicted for the crime. … Nonetheless, the trial court’s general instruction, coupled with counsel’s thorough examinations of Norwood and Banks, clearly brought the credibility issues regarding Norwood’s testimony to the forefront at trial.

State v. Lindsey

2024 Ohio 5244 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2024

McKinley, the Brown County Corner, was not qualified to testify at trial as an expert on blood spatter and/or the place when Whitey's body was positioned at the time he suffered a second gunshot wound to the head, was … But, given the plain language set forth in the statute, and more specifically, R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b), we find no such error occurred in this case. {¶ 31} Again, as that subsection clearly states, the trial court

State v. Rose

144 Ohio App. 3d 58 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2001

issue which is to be established before them. … The state’s expert testified as to his qualifications, and the trial court qualified him as an expert in the field of chemistry and drug analysis.

Pottmeyer v. Douglas

2010 Ohio 5293 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2010

Id. at *3. {¶31} At trial, the court rejected the written agreement because it did not qualify as a deed. Id. at *2. … or occasional to establish continuous use.

State v. Coffman

2023 Ohio 2104 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2023

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing where we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not support the sentencing court’s … Subsections (B) and (C) establish the factors indicating whether the offender’s conduct is more serious or less serious than conduct normally constituting the offense.

Richardson v. Welded Tubes, Inc., 2007-A-0069 (6-13-2008)

2008 Ohio 2920 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2008

It granted immunity to complying employers from any common-law actions for injuries suffered by employees in the workplace. {¶ 56} Thus, in general, an employee's only recourse for a workplace injury is through the workers … and beyond that to prove recklessness must be established.

Rahman. v. Ohio Dept. Transp., Unpublished Decision (6-15-2006)

2006 Ohio 3013 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 2006

The court determined that plaintiff's negligence claim also encompassed an allegation that ODOT created a qualified nuisance, and that under a claim of qualified nuisance, the allegations of nuisance and negligence merge … No. 01AP-1362, 2002-Ohio-4499 , discussed a claim of qualified nuisance, stating: * * * A qualified nuisance is premised upon negligence.

State ex rel. O'shea & Associates Co. v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority

190 Ohio App. 3d 218 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2010

. {¶ 8} The express language of item 2 clearly requests records containing certain information- — -personal-injury claims. … Statutory Damages {¶ 40} Clearly, in light of the discussion above, CMHA failed to comply with O’Shea’s request as required by R.C. 149.43(B).

Karavolos v. Brown Derby, Inc.

99 Ohio App. 3d 548 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1994

After discovery, appellee filed its motion for summary judgment, arguing that appellant’s conditions of dysthymia and cocaine delusional disorder did not qualify for compensation under Ohio’s workers’ compensation statute … The foregoing medical opinions clearly manifest the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, to wit: whether appellant’s dysthymia and cocaine delusional disorder were proximately caused by the physical injury which

State v. McMillan

69 Ohio App. 3d 36 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 1990

We must determine from our review whether the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Id. … "■You have established him as an expert; so, it should be opinion; but, go ahead. "Q. Is it then your opinion, Det.

Berning v. Lutheran Hous. Serv. 9

241 N.E.3d 816 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2024

. {¶ 7} The court then noted that the “primary substantive” issue before it was whether the purchase price qualified as a security deposit. … The trial court stated “the parties clearly manifested an intent to pay a six-figure purchase price for the right to occupy one of [appellants’] units for life.”

Lyon v. Riverside Methodist Hosp.

2025 Ohio 2991 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2025

As part of S.B. 281, the legislator created R.C. 2323.43, which established caps on noneconomic damages1 for medical claims. … No. 23AP-379 15 deem it necessary; and no special privilege or immunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed

Tate v. Tate

2018 Ohio 1244 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2018

Hal Tate testified that "we established long ago that the [buyout] figure would be established at cost." T. at 1153. Appellant understood the same. … Appellant agreed they were qualified to do so. T. at 161. The first page of the report indicates its "purpose" is to establish fair market value for the Tate Farms entities (land, cattle, equipment).