Case law

State v. Standard Wellness Co., L.L.C.

2022 Ohio 1604 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 12, 2022

Thus, cultivators grow the raw plant material, * * * while dispensaries in turn sell [marijuana] products to qualifying medical marijuana patients." … See Decision at 6 (emphasis in original); see also, e.g., id. at 7 ("Clearly, the Board has the authority to issue a subpoena pursuant to an investigation into alleged violations of R.C.

In re R.R.

2026 Ohio 1919 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 26, 2026

The parties shall submit expert reports and curricula vitae in accordance with the time schedule established by the Court. … Thereafter, the responding party shall submit opposing expert reports within the schedule established by the Court.

State v. Rauscher, 9-06-42 (7-2-2007)

2007 Ohio 3339 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2007

The Ohio Supreme Court has limited the substantial compliance standard in Plummer to "excusing only errors that are clearly de *Page 8 minimis." Burnside , 2003-Ohio-5372 , at ¶ 34 ; Glenn , at ¶ 10 . … Once the prosecution establishes substantial compliance, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the defendant is prejudiced by anything less than strict compliance.

Lepsky v. Lepsky

2022 Ohio 4710 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2022

The parties agree to split equally the cost of the qualified domestic relations order by QDRO Consultants, Inc. … This section clearly identifies equal division of only the marital portion of the retirement accounts.

State v. Woods

2024 Ohio 954 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2024

Although it is not clear if “her area” referred to her vagina or her pubic region, any area inside her underwear would qualify as an erogenous zone as defined by R.C. 2907.01(B). … Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to establish the GSI alleged in Count 27.

Colletti v. State

12 Ohio App. 104 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 23, 1919

It is clearly the established law in Ohio that the accused has the right to be present at such view of the premises, and it is error to deprive him of the right to be there if he so desires. … “The Court: No, I think the last answer qualifies the rest of it now. Defendant excepts.”

State v. Baker

2014 Ohio 2873 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2014

However, there was no attempt to qualify her as an expert capable of testifying to the chemical effect of this powder. {¶21} In order to arrive at its conclusion, the dissent cites to expert testimony in the trial … The Supreme Court has advised that the substantial compliance standard should be applied “to excus[e] only errors that are clearly de minimis.” State v.

In re Dor.B.

2018 Ohio 2666 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 2018

JFS responds that the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that awarding permanent custody to JFS was in the children’s best interest. … Even after these elements are established, however, a business record may be excluded from evidence if “the source of information or the 25.

Helmig, Exr. v. Kramer

48 Ohio App. 71 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 1934

Shepherd, upon the record, would seem to be as well qualified to testify respecting mental diseases as any doctor who would be available in Ohio. His training and experience are unusual. … On the question of undue influence we will not attempt to set forth in detail the facts in the record tending to establish this claim.

State v. Williams

179 N.E.3d 228 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 2021

Based upon these facts as well as the balance of the record, we cannot say that we clearly and convincingly find that the trial Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0003 15 … Williams, you have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a qualifying violent offender offense. That would be kidnapping as set forth in Count 2.

State v. Sinclair

2020 Ohio 4860 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2020

An abuse of discretion exists where the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice, or where the judgment reaches an end or purpose not justified … Ohio Adm.Code 3701–53– 09 explains how a person becomes qualified to operate that instrument.

In re the Estate of Gaines

4 Ohio App. Unrep. 128 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1990

At the new-trail hearing, the court heard evidence and found: *130 "The evidence established the Report was in error. That in the interim the surviving spouse died August 24,1987. … R.C. 2311.01 Clearly, R.C. 2107.45 requires the trialcourt to enter findings and apply the law. In that regard, it qualifies as a trial for purposes of Civ. R. 59. The first assignment of error is overruled.

In re Estate of Flowers

2017 Ohio 1310 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2017

The probate court allowed the letter to be admitted to the extent that other doctors relied upon it in reaching their opinions. {¶ 48} Clearly, the diagnosis and opinion of Dr. … Nonetheless, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that the rule “shall be construed as stating the common law of Ohio unless the rules clearly indicate that a change is intended.” Mastran v.

Catudal v. Catudal

2016 Ohio 8498 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2016

Krukowski and all Associates are qualified individuals over the age of 18 and are not parties to any actions being served." (Nov. 10, 2014 Am. Reply, Ex. B.) … entirety of [appellant's] behavior is problematic and very likely to lead to an official "vexatious litigator" designation pursuant to § 2323.52 of the Revised Code as his conduct is clearly

State Ex Rel. Vantage Joint Vocational School District Board of Education v. Hoffman

57 Ohio App. 2d 201 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 1977

electors residing in the school district proposed to become a part of the existing vocational district equal in number to a majority of the qualified electors voting at the last general election file with “such board of … C. 3313.91, that the Board ‘may assign school districts to joint vocational districts,’ clearly denotes the Board’s authority to mandate the outright joinder of school districts to joint vocational school districts,” such

City of Beachwood v. Pearl

111 N.E.3d 620 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2018

He conceded that he could not clearly see into the vehicle from the video footage. … The dogs cannot be clearly and consistently observed in the body camera video footage.

Youngstown Edn. Assn. v. Kimble

2016 Ohio 1481 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2016

Kimble seeks to have this definition establish Staten as a teacher. … As earlier stated, YEA's likelihood of success on the merits in this regard is clearly established.

State v. Upkins

2026 Ohio 770 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2026

“To qualify for plain- error relief, the appellant must establish: (1) occurrence of an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule; (2) the error was plain, i.e., it was an obvious defect in the trial proceedings; and … After reviewing the several statements in the context of the trial, we find that Upkins has not established that he qualifies for plain-error relief.

Batchelder v. Young, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2006)

2006 Ohio 6097 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2006

Where a complaint does not clearly indicate the capacity in which the defendant is being sued, federal courts look to the course of the proceedings to determine whether the defendant received notice of the plaintiff's intent … Specifically, a political subdivision such as Trumbull County is entitled to a general blanket of immunity under R.C. 2744.02 (A).

Fackelman v. Micronix

2012 Ohio 5513 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 2012

Former 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(iv).3 {¶9} Fackelman makes much of the lack of any qualifier contained in subpart iv of former 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). … Fackelman argues that Shalkhauser was allowed to testify about inadmissible hearsay statements to establish that he was given permission to send the offending fax.