Case law

Ange v. Parker-Hannifin Corp.

127 N.E.3d 522 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2019

He does not do so. * * * [Parker Hannifin] offers [Ange’s] employment application as evidence to show that [Ange] was clearly aware that he was employed at-will. … The failure to * * * keep informed of the progress of an ongoing case does not qualify as excusable neglect”). See also Roberts v. Roberson, 8th Dist.

State v. Jackson, 88345 (6-14-2007)

2007 Ohio 2925 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2007

This type of testimony qualified as evidence of the "course of investigation" under the second prong of the Combs analysis. {¶ 29} Defendant contends that State v. … The burden of establishing that two offenses are allied falls upon the defendant. State v. Douse (Nov. 29, 2001), Cuyahoga App.

State Ex Rel. Sunoco v. Robey Indus. Comm., 06ap-361 (9-20-2007)

2007 Ohio 4859 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2007

Robey could eventually qualify for light to sedentary work. … The Ohio Supreme Court has held that to establish a basis for continuing jurisdiction the moving party must establish that there had been one or more of the following: (1) New and changed circumstances subsequent to the initial

State v. Nero

2 Ohio App. Unrep. 171 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 1990

As clearly espoused by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. … Where legislative intent is clearly expressed, the statute may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or abridged. Wachendorf v. Shaver (1948), 149 Ohio St. 231 .

State v. Bew

2022 Ohio 753 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2022

Clearly, from this bush, you can see where the traffic stop is?” {¶30} These questions, if they even are questions, are inappropriate for direct examination. … the issue which is to be established before them.”

State v. Maher

2017 Ohio 7807 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2017

. {¶ 19} At trial, Lieutenant McFarland qualified and testified as an expert witness in crash reconstruction. … To show prejudice, appellant must establish that, but for his trial counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different. Id. at 694.

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

2013 Ohio 5663 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2013

which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established … paying her $250 per week in spousal support and provide for his own needs at the same time. {¶18} Teresa also argues that the magistrate erroneously found that she had additional business income when the testimony clearly

Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Brock, Unpublished Decision (2-14-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2000

App.R. 4 establishes a thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that App.R. 4 provides the exclusive list of reasons for extending the time to file a notice of appeal. … Even though this court looks at the substance of a motion and not the caption, this particular motion does not qualify as a Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion.

Carter v. Forestview Terrace, L.L.C.

2016 Ohio 5229 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2016

We conclude that the General Assembly intended both to provide tenants with greater rights and to negate the previous tort immunities for landlords.” … The plaintiff must further establish proximate cause for the injuries sustained.

State v. Rozikov

2020 Ohio 4884 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2020

“Under the plain-error standard, the appellant must demonstrate that the outcome of his trial would clearly have been different but for the trial court’s errors.” Id., citing State v. … “Thus, scientific studies are not the exclusive means to establish reliability under Daubert. Rather, ‘the relevant reliability concerns may focus upon personal knowledge or experience.’”

State v. Wallace

256 N.E.3d 733 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2024

We give words their plain, ordinary meaning—unless the legislature has clearly expressed a contrary intention. … As is well established, the word "shall" is not always mandatory. See, e.g., Lovejoy v. Deil, 2021-Ohio-1124, ¶ 33 (12th Dist.)

Lumberman's Mutual Insurance v. F. Z. Cikra, Inc.

58 Ohio Law. Abs. 66 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1950

Upon this subject the court expressed the view that there was evidence tending to establish a subsequent and separate contract for repairs. … It seems unlikely that contemporary business men would take advantage of the immunity clause by careless treatment of their customers’ property.

Sabo v. State

31 Ohio App. 185 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 1928

the jury of the guilt of the accused, was conclusive of that fact, and the court possessed no power to set the verdict aside and grant a new trial on the merits, on the motion of the accused, even where the verdict was clearly … They are codifications of parts of the criminal code adopted in 1866, by an act entitled ‘An Act to establish a code of criminal procedure.’

State Ex Rel. Haire v. Industrial Commission

154 Ohio App. 3d 82 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2003

Without the qualifying phrase, the definition is too narrow, because employers who operate workshops may include nonprofit organizations such as *88 charities, schools, or government entities, and the workers would be employed … In both of the farm cases, the operations clearly involved processing and packaging a product with power machinery.

State v. Lundy

2020 Ohio 1585 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2020

By decision and entry entered December 29, 2014, the trial court denied the motion, finding that a change in CPD's reporting procedure for DNA results did not qualify as newly discovered evidence pursuant to Crim.R. 33(B) … actual innocence and in which (1) the convicted defendant explains that he promptly forwarded the claimed exonerating evidence to his eventual lawyers at the Ohio Innocence Project, (2) that evidence clearly suggests (despite

Ocwen Loan Servicing L.L.C. v. Hamilton

2017 Ohio 8749 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2017

prohibition on hearsay evidence for records of "regularly conducted business activity * * * if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the [record] as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified … L-01-1332 (Feb. 22, 2002) ("Clearly appellant, who by her own admission stopped making payments on the loan, was in default and the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment on the foreclosure action.").

State v. Basham, Ct2007-0010 (12-26-2007)

2007 Ohio 6995 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2007

In order to warrant reversal under a review for plain error, appellant "must establish that the outcome of the *Page 14 trial would clearly have been different but for the trial court's allegedly improper actions." … In order to warrant reversal under a review for plain error, appellant "must establish that the outcome of the trial would clearly have been different but for the trial court's allegedly improper actions."

Knott v. Revolution Software, Inc.

181 Ohio App. 3d 519 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2009

. {¶ 17} It was undisputed by the parties that Knott met the established targets for three years: 1999, 2000, and 2002. … The status of RevSoft as a subchapter S corporation was clearly established at all pertinent times.

Columbus v. Catudal

2019 Ohio 1137 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2019

Add to all of that, whatever ordinances I am accused of violating, clearly conflicts with Ohio law, i.e., Revised Code 4511.204(C)(1). … We stated " '[i]t has long been established that "[i]n determining whether an ordinance is in 'conflict' with general laws, the test is whether the ordinance permits or licenses that which the statute forbids and prohibits

Felden v. Ashland Chemical Co.

91 Ohio App. 3d 48 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 1993

Clearly, these four other accidents were substantially similar to Felden’s accident and were thus admissible. … An intentional tort clearly fits within the parameters of a “tort action” as defined by R.C. 2317.45.