Case law

State v. Clay

181 Ohio App. 3d 563 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2009

Clearly the prosecutor could have properly cross-examined Hamann if the court had declared Hamann to be a court witness. … These statements qualified as excited utterances under Evid.R. 803(2), and thus were admissible. Rule 803.

Stephen v. Fox

28 Ohio Law. Abs. 123 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1938

will having been executed on the 6th day of December, 1921, which was duly admitted to probate in the Probate Court of Monroe County, Ohio, and was duly probated and letters testamentary were issued to the plaintiffs who qualified … The court further say: “This is declared by him to be the rule that is now finally established in England.

State v. Stephens

2022 Ohio 2944 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2022

Id. {¶35} Appellant has the burden to establish the existence of plain error, and therefore must establish that the outcome of the trial would clearly have been different but for the trial court's allegedly improper … If testimony qualifies as nonhearsay, it does not implicate the Confrontation Clause. Id. at 59, citing Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078, 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985); State v.

Madigan v. Dollar Building & Loan Co.

52 Ohio App. 553 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 1935

“The existence of the rule contended for is clearly established. … The principle is clearly set forth at page 160 of the opinion.

Cincinnati Insurance v. Getter

194 Ohio App. 3d 788 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 2011

The court noted that while the parties had qualified the phrase “wear and decay” in the surrender clause with the word “ordinary,” they did not qualify in any way the phrase “loss by fire,” and thus the phrase “loss by fire … The first approach is the rule established in Sutton v.

Roberts v. Board of Education

30 Ohio Law. Abs. 408 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1939

It was established that the body of the bus which plaintiff was using to transport pupils was more than eight years old. … Like wise if a contract is clearly made pursuant to a statute it will be construed as though such statute was carried into and made a part of that contract. Cusack v McGrain et, 136 Oh St 27.

State v. Bryant, Ca2007-02-024 (6-23-2008)

2008 Ohio 3078 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2008

Benge , 75 Ohio St.3d 136 , 143 , 1996-Ohio-227 . {¶ 12} It is well-established that both circumstantial and direct evidence have the same probative value, and in some instances, certain facts can be established only by circumstantial … therefore overruled. {¶ 34} Assignment of Error No. 1: {¶ 35} "THE TRIAL JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE ALLOWED DETECTIVE HENNING TO TESTIFY ABOUT AN EMPLOYEE'S OUT-OF-COURT ORAL STATEMENTS AS THOSE STATEMENTS DID NOT QUALIFY

In re S.S.

2025 Ohio 842 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2025

Here, the evidence in the record establishes that Father complied with the case plan, established paternity, developed a relationship with S.D.M., and had stable housing for the child. … The court determined that S.S. was in the Agency’s custody for more than two years and no longer qualified for temporary custody.

State v. Cook

2020 Ohio 3411 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2020

Kuhr’s testimony clearly establishes that, by reason of her education, training, experience, and specialized knowledge, she is an expert on matters of child sexual abuse. … As discussed in exhaustive detail above, the State presented substantial evidence establishing Cook’s guilt.

State v. Beckett, 06 Ha 584 (6-21-2007)

2007 Ohio 3175 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2007

Clearly, Beckett was brought to trial within that time. … Therefore the defendant's argument that because he was not placed in a jail facility or in an individual cell would not stand legal screening." (01/31/06 Tr. 134-136). {¶ 73} The above does not clearly establish that Beckett

Career & Technical Assn. v. Auburn Vocational School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

2014 Ohio 1572 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2014

Under this interpretation, the planning period created by the board between 7:30 a.m. and 8:15 a.m. for the 2011-2012 school year does not qualify as a planning period because teachers are not assigned instructional duties … reasonable period of time as a fixed and established practice accepted by both parties.” 9 Assn. of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the Intl.

Upkins v. Brosh

2018 Ohio 2971 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2018

He asserts that Upkins “failed to both establish that he has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted and he failed to establish that he is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R … Finally, Brosh asserts that Upkins “has failed to plead operative facts in his complaint that would overcome [her] right to prosecutorial immunity.” {¶ 22} Upkins filed a reply brief, attached to which are copies

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Bogle

166 Ohio App. 3d 449 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2006

It reformed asbestos litigation in Ohio by establishing a uniform process for asbestos claimants to use in advancing their claims. … Any party may request reinstatement to active status of a case by filing with the Court a request for reinstatement together with an affidavit setting forth the facts that qualify the case for active processing. * * * The

State v. Smith

2023 Ohio 4800 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2023

In the accompanying memorandum in support, the state argued appellant failed to establish he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence at issue. … Chafin,” and such statement “was clearly exculpatory as to [appellant].” (McNamara Aff. at ¶ 3-4.)

State v. Walker

2026 Ohio 1767 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 14, 2026

Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (2000), the court in Richmond stated: “[T]he smell of marijuana, alone, by a person qualified to recognize the odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause to search a motor vehicle … [I]f the smell of marijuana, as detected by a person who is qualified to recognize the odor, is the sole circumstance, this is sufficient to establish probable cause.

State v. Helfrich

107 N.E.3d 695 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2018

Thus, Helfrich’s crimes and acts were clearly -14- Case No. 13-17-30, 13-17-31, 13-17-32 separated by the span of three days. See generally, State v. … Thus, we agree with the trial court that Helfrich was not an “eligible offender” for purposes of the sealing statute. {¶27} Accordingly, because Helfrich was unable to establish himself as an eligible offender (

Banks v. Ltv Steel Co.

100 Ohio App. 3d 585 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 1995

Appellees advance a second argument that appellant’s condition was not caused by her injuries but by perception of fear and could not qualify as a “flow through” condition. … Thus, in order to recover workers’ compensation benefits for a mental condition, the employee must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) there was an injury received in the course of, and arising out of, the

Evans v. Ohio State University

112 Ohio App. 3d 724 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 1996

On the contrary, the Boy Scout Handbook clearly provides, ‘[w]hat the troop does is planned by the patrol leaders’ council.’ … Even assuming that the Court of Claims erred in finding that OSU was entitled to statutory immunity on the grounds that the decision not to disseminate information about Waites’s criminal record constituted a basic policy

McMichael v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr.

97 N.E.3d 756 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 2017

McMichael failed to establish that his wife’s death was the proximate result of Dr. Pakiela’s negligence. … Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). {¶42} An expert tendered “‘to establish the recognized standards of the medical community * * * must be qualified to express an opinion concerning the specific standard of

State v. Rohrer

2015 Ohio 5333 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2015

her of liberty must be balanced against the state's interest in committing those who are mentally 3 5122.42, preservation of rights and privileges, provides: “Nothing in this chapter limits any rights, privileges, or immunities … It appears that R.C. 5122.01(A)(4) and (12) both clearly address the situation where psychiatric records are used for an initial or continued commitment hearing. {¶ 57} Dr.