Case law

State v. Evans

2023 Ohio 1879 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2023

He argues that there was insufficient evidence that he possessed a “deadly weapon” because his “small, encased half-scissors that he had in his pocket did not qualify as a deadly weapon.” … He argues that “the small, encased half-scissors that he had in his pocket did not qualify as a deadly weapon.”

State v. Sanders

2022 Ohio 2261 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2022

But it was not imminent, therefore, it does not qualify as a [misperception], that would lead to insanity. (Tr. 338.) Dr. … This court recognizes that both experts are reputable, qualified experts in the field. Dr.

Babcock v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

42 Ohio Law. Abs. 271 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1944

New Jersey corporation, and at the times mentioned in .the petition was. duly qualified and doing business in 'the state of Ohio and. in Franklin County. … The record clearly discloses that after search the written listing was not found in the office of Zinn & Company.

State v. Ramsey

7 Ohio App. Unrep. 459 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1990

A reasonable person would not feel free to walk away under these circumstances Furthermore, it is clearly not in the state's interest to argue that a citizen has the right to ignore the approach of uniformed police officers … Specifically, where quantity is lacking, the qualify or reliability of a tip may be established by corroborating details of the tip relating to "*** future actions of third parties ordinarily not easily predicted."

Miami Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Weinle

174 N.E.3d 1270 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2021

947, ¶ 21 (1st Dist.). {¶26} Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established … The witnesses consisted of a township trustee, a township assistant fire chief, residents who each lived between 230 and 500 feet of the Dirt Track, and qualified experts.

State v. Nurse

2013 Ohio 785 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 2013

Nurse has appealed, raising five assignments of error for our review. 1 Bernard’s last name was never established.  2 … Alexander was inadmissible hearsay because it did not qualify as an excited utterance under Evid.R. 803(2). {¶18} However, assuming without deciding that the trial court should have excluded Ms.

Board Trustees of Springfield v. Anderson, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2007)

2007 Ohio 1530 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2007

. {¶ 4} Appellant had also alleged that a large red, white, and blue painted wagon containing firewood also qualified as a "sign" and was a zoning violation as well. … Zoning Resolution defines a "sign" as any device, fixture, placard, or structure that uses any color, form, graphic, illumination, symbol, or writing to advertise, announce, or identify a person, entity, product, service, establishment

In re K.S.

2026 Ohio 1134 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2026

The paternity of K.S. has not been established. {¶3} Mother and Father have multiple criminal convictions for various offenses, and both are registered sexual offenders. … Mother does not qualify for subsidized housing due to her sexual offender status. She alluded to having found a new home she would keep secret from Father, but she did not explain when she planned to move.

State v. Coulter

75 Ohio App. 3d 219 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 11, 1992

In order to establish self-defense, the defendant must establish, among other things, that she had a bona-fide belief that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that the only means of escape from the … Indeed, the testimony of these witnesses, especially Sheppard, clearly had the potential to be adverse to appellant’s interests.

Norman v. Pearson

203 N.E.3d 20 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 2022

period when his blood sugar dropped was “speculation” and “a mischaracterization of the evidence,” which  -16- was that he “was found clearly … To qualify for the defense, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had no reason to anticipate or foresee the sudden loss of consciousness. Dunlap v. W.L.

State v. Hickman

2015 Ohio 4668 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2015

This Court may not reverse the judgment of the trial court on the basis of plain error, unless appellant has established that the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different but for the alleged error. … “One may not know or altogether understand the imponderables which cause one to think what he thinks, but surely one who is trying as an honest [person] to live up to the sanctity of his [or her] oath is well qualified

Biggs v. Bernard, Exr.

98 Ohio App. 451 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 1954

It is the view of this court that the contract, although conditional, was in conformity with, and not violative of, the established principles of law applicable to and controlling the formation of contracts of a conditional … It is the view of this court that the law applicable to the situation of the parties at that stage in their dealings has been announced clearly by the Supreme Court of the state in the case of J. A. Wigmore Co. v.

State v. Henry

2026 Ohio 1012 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2026

at the time of the statements even though an hour had elapsed since defendant left the scene). {¶26} Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting V.C.’s statements as they qualify … “Ownership need not be proven to establish constructive possession.” State v. Sarvabui, 2020-Ohio-1429, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.). “This Court has specifically noted that access to a weapon can establish possession.”

Air-Ride v. Dhl Express (Usa), Inc., Ca2008-04-012 (1-12-2009)

2009 Ohio 99 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2009

Air-Ride argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because DHL failed to establish that Air-Ride's flights actually were unfavorable. … None of those qualifiers are present in this case. Specifically, no "explicit provision" or "tacit recognition" of the course of dealing is acknowledged in the contract. Nor are there any omitted terms.

State v. Cherry

2024 Ohio 5344 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 2024

Here, the evidence at trial established that Christy had initially gone to Cherry’s trailer so Tyson could purchase drugs from Cherry. … “To qualify as a present sense impression, the statement must be made in close temporal proximity to the event described.” State v.

State v. Thompson

2016 Ohio 5571 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2016

For example, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that police officers trained and qualified may testify that a substance is marijuana without a laboratory test as long as there is a sufficient foundation laid to establish … testimony is established.

State v. McGriff

109 Ohio App. 3d 668 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 1996

The state’s assignment of error is: “The trial court erred in permitting the defendant-doctor to immunize himself from criminal prosecution by asserting the doctor-patient privilege.” … “The rule clearly states that the matter of privilege is controlled by statute or common law. This rule removes the matter of privileges from the operation of the Rules of Evidence.

In re: F.B.

115 N.E.3d 734 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2018

That inquiry clearly relied on several factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.051(D). … (2) Notwithstanding the stipulation, the admissibility of the test results is subject to the discretion of the trial judge, and if the trial judge is not convinced that the examiner is qualified or

State v. Cooper

147 Ohio App. 3d 116 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2002

Under plain error analysis, it must be clear from the record that an error was committed and, except for the *127 error, the result of the trial clearly would have been otherwise. State v. … the following apply: {¶ 45} “(A) The witness’ testimony either relates to matters beyond the knowledge or experience possessed by lay persons or dispels a misconception common among lay persons; {¶ 46} “(B) The witness is qualified

Harris v. Vision Energy, L.L.C.

250 N.E.3d 208 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2024

To establish a violation of the 14  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS IWPCA, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) the defendant was an ‘employer’ as defined … Harris and Defendants qualify as “prevailing parties” under the rule, and taxing costs equally against them both was thus permissible under Civ.R. 54(D) and does not constitute an abuse of discretion. We overrule Mr.