Case law

Lowe v. Compton

2025 Ohio 2646 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2025

Id. {¶15} R.C. 2505.02(B) identifies the types of orders that qualify as final, appealable orders. … that before an Ohio court can consider the merits of a legal claim, the person seeking relief must establish standing to sue.

State v. Harrah

2011 Ohio 4065 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2011

Harrah argues that the trial court’s finding that he violated his community control was against the manifest weight of the evidence because his visit to the VFW Post did not qualify as a community control violation. … Harrah, because “there was a way to monitor [him] in the community short of a prison sentence[,] [t]he trial court clearly abused its discretion in sentencing [him] to prison[.]” {¶16} Mr.

Masek v. Reliance Electric Co.

4 Ohio App. Unrep. 287 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 1990

paper at the office; 3) poor handling of contract negotiations; 4) failure to provide essential documents necessary for a corporate divestiture; and 5) failure of appellant-Raymond Masek to carry out responsibilities for qualifying … Pyle (1983), 11 Ohio App. 3d 31 , setforth the elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Kelley v. Horton

2025 Ohio 5252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2025

At no point during this initial objection did Kelley contend that the ACR guideline was inadmissible hearsay, argue that defendants failed to set forth the proper foundation, or assert that the ACR guideline failed to qualify … The Ohio Supreme Court has clearly stated that Civ.R. 51(A) provides, [A] party may not assign as error the giving or the failure to give any instruction unless the party objects before the jury retires to

Dunkel v. Motorists Mutual Insurance

41 Ohio App. 3d 130 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1987

Clearly, Annette is separately damaged. … According to the court, this right of subrogation was subject to the established rule that where an insured has not interfered with an insurer’s subrogation rights, the insurer may neither be reimbursed for payments made

State v. Caldwell

2019 Ohio 3015 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2019

That clearly establishes Caldwell's actions constituted a single course of conduct under the noted authorities. … The video and the three referenced 911 calls clearly establish Caldwell knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to S.S. by pushing and punching her. {¶ 31} In sum, we hold Caldwell engaged in a single

Blythin v. Zangerle

83 Ohio App. 355 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 1947

and 5th paragraphs of the syllabus. 7 The court at page 339 of the opinion in Shuster v Mortgage Loan Company said: “Not only the plan and the contract but the order of the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county, show clearly … Concluding our observations therefore on the first question presented, we think the findings of the supreme court which fully approved the findings of this court in its affirmance as set forth therein, established the proposition

Stadler v. Gatchell

2022 Ohio 1325 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2022

The parties do not dispute that various qualifying rights were affected by the trial court’s January 27, 2020 order. … Sullivan, 122 Ohio St.3d 83 at ¶ 9, 12 (where a specific statute said an order denying a political subdivision immunity “is a final order,” Civ.R. 54(B) language was not required to make the denial of immunity a final, appealable

State v. Brotherton

2024 Ohio 5045 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2024

Defense counsel and Brotherton had clearly discussed the reason the ILC violation had been brought. … "Speculation is not sufficient to establish ineffective assistance of counsel."

State v. Watkins

2018 Ohio 46 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 8, 2018

The investigation shall include a mental examination of the child by a public or private agency or by a person qualified to make the examination. … Thus, Watkins' argument is clearly unsupported by the record and without merit.

In re the Adoption of I.R.R.M.

2014 Ohio 1719 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2014

Accordingly, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony as exclusion is not clearly necessary to enforce willful noncompliance or to prevent unfair surprise. … The Ohio Supreme Court emphasized that monetary gifts to the child do not qualify as support because they are not payments as required by law or judicial decree as R.C. 3107.07(A) requires.

State v. Hartline

2022 Ohio 2997 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2022

Clear and convincing evidence is that “‘which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Id. at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. … “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.” Id.

Moe v. Yost

2025 Ohio 914 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2025

The Guidelines provide that all youth with gender dysphoria should be evaluated, diagnosed, and treated by a qualified healthcare professional. … Accord L.W., 83 F.4th at 511 (White, J., dissenting) (“Clearly, . . .

Akron v. Schaffer

2026 Ohio 2017 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 29, 2026

This Court applies a de novo standard of review to questions of law and a clearly erroneous standard of review to questions of fact. … Notably, however, this Court concluded that “such pro se motions still qualify as tolling events under R.C. 2945.72(E) for purposes of calculating speedy trial time.” Hill at ¶ 11.

In re De.R.

2024 Ohio 1183 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2024

McCarty was not identified as an expert witness, Mother maintains that she could not qualify to testify in that capacity. {¶11} During the permanency trial, Ms. … Regarding Da.R., the evidence established that he was placed in HCJFS care three days after his birth, and at the time of the hearing, he had been in the custody of HCJFS for 11 months. {¶33} Thereafter, the court

State v. Gray

2020 Ohio 1402 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2020

The burden lies with the defendant to affirmatively establish that he will suffer prejudice by said joinder. State v. … In exchange for her testimony against Gray and Keeton, the State agreed to grant her immunity and dismiss the charges against her arising from the instant matter.

Peters v. Densmore

75 Ohio Law. Abs. 306 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 1955

Defendant contends that “the plaintiff does attempt to contradict his statement by attemping to qualify and negative that portion which states that so far as he knew he was not injured.” … With reference to the claimed error of cross-examination of plaintiff by defendant relative to other accidents prior and subsequent to the collision under consideration in our opinion the defendant was entitled to establish

Andrew P. v. Jessy Z.

177 Ohio App. 3d 837 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2008

Wayne Graves, a psychiatrist qualified as an expert, evaluated Jessy, Andrew, and Katherina. {¶ 12} 7. With respect to Katherina, Dr. … However, the trial court clearly abused its discretion and applied the incorrect statutory sections when naming both Jessy and Andrew as the residential parent and legal custodian.

Crites v. Anthem Life Ins. Co.

2014 Ohio 1682 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2014

Crites first argues that the equitable remedy of constructive trust violates ERISA, and the parties should have created a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) to designate T. Crites and L. … Crites failed to clearly and convincingly establish that she waived her rights to her ex-husband’s insurance policy.

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Stanley

2018 Ohio 4229 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 2018

as final and appealable because, in that entry, the court “fail[ed] to [establish] the amount of the lien held by Shawnee Hills.” … All “three [of the] elements must be established, and ‘the test is not fulfilled if any one of the requirements is not met.’ ” Dayton Lodge at ¶ 20, quoting Strack v.