Case law

Vacheresse v. Paulchel

2023 Ohio 3226 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2023

Vacheresse did not present any expert evidence—e.g., a report from another appraiser or testimony from a qualified realtor—concerning the value of the Johnstown property at trial. {¶ 19} On appeal, Ms. … She did not offer her own appraisals into evidence or call any qualified experts to testify about their assessment of the Johnstown property’s value. Thus, Ms.

In re Guardianship of Shriver

2015 Ohio 5172 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2015

Addison testified that appellee was able to clearly express his wishes and desires and that he seemed to comprehend what was said to him. … Kirkbride testified that appellee was coherent, and was able to clearly converse and comprehend at the meeting.

Wheeling Corp. v. Columbus & Ohio River Railroad

147 Ohio App. 3d 460 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2001

ORDC issued the RFP, establishing a competitive selection process, in order to determine the best qualified operator and to enter into an operating agreement with the selected rail operator. {¶ 2} The proposal process was … Gustafson clearly was well- *486 qualified to testify as an expert in the case, and his testimony supports the trial court’s conclusion both with respect to the feasibility of basing safety data on two years’ experience for

State v. Jackson

246 N.E.3d 700 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2024

The defendant bears the burden to establish that R.C. 2941.25 prohibits multiple punishments. State v. Washington, 2013-Ohio-4982, ¶ 18. C. … but not to the extent of such certainty as is required “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established

State v. Thornsley

2025 Ohio 5128 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2025

Even if these elements are established, a business record may be excluded from evidence if “the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.” … as a thirteenth juror and “in reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses, and determines whether in resolving conflicts in evidence the jury ‘clearly

Jodka v. Toledo

232 N.E.3d 944 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2023

The trial court did not address the parties’ arguments regarding the injunction or immunity. (April 24, 2023 Order.) … Appeals shall be heard through an administrative process established by the City of Toledo Police Department.

Barberton v. Jenney, 24423 (4-29-2009)

2009 Ohio 1985 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2009

Testimony by a law enforcement officer that "he was trained on the radar unit" is insufficient to establish that he is qualified to operate it. Brown , 2002-Ohio-6463 , at ¶ 12. … Jenney has established that it is unknown whether Officer Santimarino was properly certified to operate the device. Mr.

Clark v. Beyoglides

182 N.E.3d 1212 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2021

. {¶ 13} After several pre-trials, the probate court established a summary judgment deadline for May 3, 2021. … This part of the statute does not lack clarity, and clearly states that a disclaimer, whether testate or intestate, operates to distinguish any interest or “title” at a point prior to the decedent’s death.

Benton Twp. v. Rocky Ridge Dev., L.L.C.

2020 Ohio 4162 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2020

To establish that R.C. 519.21(A) applies, Rocky Ridge must establish that it is using its property primarily for an agricultural purpose. Scioto Twp. Zoning Inspector v. Puckett, 2015-Ohio-1444, 31 N.E.3d 1254, ¶ 12. … Here, the topsoil is being removed from an area on A-3 property to be altered, amended, and reburied in another area. 19.  {¶ 41} To establish that R.C. 519.21(A) applies, Rocky Ridge must establish that it is

In Re Priser, Unpublished Decision (3-19-2004)

2004 Ohio 1315 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2004

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶ 13} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT REFUSED TO QUALIFY MS. … R.C. 2151.353 (E)(2). {¶ 49} The State additionally argues that the trial court's refusal to qualify Ms.

State v. Wolford-Lee

2018 Ohio 5064 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2018

Appellants attempted to qualify Fiorello as an expert during trial, but the state objected because appellants had not provided an expert report before trial in compliance with Crim.R. 16(K). … While it is likely that a proffer would have been a stronger strategy to clearly establish these contentions on the record at trial, the purpose of Crim.R. 52(B) is apparently disregarded by the majority.

State v. Trammell

2013 Ohio 4615 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2013

Gandy was responsible for intake and qualifying patients from 2005 to 2010. 2 Gandy stated that she qualified Moon, and recalled that Moon was living in another location, not a nursing … While the evidence regarding the Berman count may be sufficient enough to establish such an offense, the documents regarding the Schottenstein documents are not established as forgeries by definition

State ex rel. Vonderheide v. Multi-Color Corp.

111 N.E.3d 773 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 3, 2018

At issue is whether the work Vonderheide performed at her family's farm qualifies as employment, such that she was a part of the active workforce immediately prior to the time for which she requested TTD compensation. … Furthermore, questions of credibility and the weight to be given evidence are clearly within the discretion of the commission as fact finder. State ex rel. Teece v. Indus.

Doner v. Snapp

98 Ohio App. 3d 597 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 1994

Granted, ostriches are not typically the subject of commercial transactions; however, they qualify as “goods” under R.C. 1302.01(A)(8). … Clearly, measure at the time of suit is not a reasonable measure of the appellants’ alleged loss.

In re L.V.

2024 Ohio 5917 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2024

“‘Clear and convincing evidence’ is evidence that ‘will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established.’” … As previously stated, the evidence clearly and convincingly showed that L.V. should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Dice v. White Family Companies, Inc.

173 Ohio App. 3d 472 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2007

Moreover, WFC and Wenrick clearly accepted the checks as “represented persons.” … Although there was no evidence of wrongdoing by WFC and Wenrick, we agree with the trial court that the evidence established that WFC and Wenrick obtained monies that clearly were not meant for them.

State v. Puckett

191 Ohio App. 3d 747 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2010

Plain error exists when the error is plain or obvious and when the error “affect[s] ‘substantial rights.’ ” The error affects substantial rights when “but for the error, ‘the outcome of the trial [proceeding] clearly would … Based on what the *757 mother saw, she testified that she talked to her family, which led to a call to police and a medical examination of the child by a qualified SANE nurse.”

State v. Coffman

130 Ohio App. 3d 467 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 1998

As such, the testimony seems clearly intended to indirectly introduce the officer’s opinion as to the credibility of the prosecuting witness. … Again, he is trying to establish credibility through testimony; and he has not been qualified as an expert to give any such testimony in credibility.

Cleveland v. Watson

2020 Ohio 3284 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2020

Thus, the city had to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Watson knowingly restrained M.D.’s liberty without privilege to do so. … The duration of the restraint does not have to be prolonged; momentary restraint is sufficient to qualify as restraint. State v. Alghamdi, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28837, 2018-Ohio-3158, ¶ 5; State v.

Litchfield Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Nimer

2012 Ohio 5431 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2012

Nimer has argued that the evidence at trial established that the property at issue is agricultural. … To qualify as “agriculture” pursuant to R.C. 519.01, however, the processing and marketing activity must be secondary to the animal husbandry. Terry, 130 Ohio St.3d 125, 2011-Ohio-3364, at ¶ 23.