Case law

State v. Watson

2015 Ohio 4517 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2015

In support, he argues that no one saw him shoot, and that the evidence conclusively establishes there were two guns used in the commission of the offense. … This statement clearly indicated a potential source of bias on the part of Bodine, and the jury was clearly made aware of that bias.

Waldie v. Conrad, Unpublished Decision (12-23-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1999

Lowery are qualified as expert witnesses by attempting to present evidence from its expert, Dr. … Lowery and Ayers were qualified to testify as experts. Clearly, both doctors meet the Scott test of demonstrating they possessed knowledge on a particular subject which is superior to that possessed by an ordinary jury.

Kaiser v. Goff

204 N.E.3d 1203 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2022

Shearer, 18 Ohio St.3d 94, 101, 480 N.E.2d 388 (1985) (abrogating parental and interspousal immunity). {¶31} Appellate courts in Ohio, including this court, have enforced R.C. 3937.18(I) as written. … We look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used in the policy unless another meaning is clearly apparent from the contents of the policy. Alexander v.

State v. Crawford

2022 Ohio 2673 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2022

This court has held that to qualify as an exception to the face-to-face confrontation requirement, “‘the procedure must (1) be justified, on a case-specific finding, based on important state interests, public policies, … In order to find plain error, it must be determined that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding clearly would have been different. State v. Hostacky, 8th Dist.

State v. Woods

2014 Ohio 3892 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2014

After the first peremptory challenge of a prospective African-American juror, the trial court stated that Woods had not yet established a pattern of discrimination. … A trial court’s finding that the opponent has failed to prove discriminatory intent will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. State v.

State v. Young, Unpublished Decision (8-20-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2001

This statement is clearly hearsay and could very legitimately be rejected by the trial court. Furthermore, the fact that Ms. Jones found the victim's body lying in the street does not establish that Ms. … Jones was unavailable as a witness, the statement would qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule under Evid.R. 804(B)(3). However, there is nothing in the record to establish Ms. Jones was unavailable.

City of Cleveland v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp.

109 N.E.3d 84 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 2018

join a necessary party, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, failure to mitigate damages, lack of standing, waiver, estoppel, release, laches, setoff and recoupment, payment, accord and satisfaction, “applicable immunities … review, this court reviews the entire record, “‘weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly

Bowditch v. Mettler Toledo

2013 Ohio 4206 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2013

Appellant Established Prima Facie Case {¶ 18} The trial court concluded appellant established a prima facie case, but did not discuss how appellant established the fourth element of the prima facie case. … Appellant does not contest that appellees set forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason by "clearly set[ting] forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the [appellant's] rejection."

State ex rel. White v. Internatl. House of Pancakes

2014 Ohio 412 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2014

Clearly, the commission did not rely on the vocational reports of Dr. Stoeckel or Mr. Stead, nor did it rely upon the White affidavit. … Collectively, these cases establish that there is not an age- ever-at which reemployment is held to be a virtual impossibility as a matter of law.

State v. Doane

7 Ohio App. Unrep. 503 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 1991

Appellant asserts that this finding is also against the weight of the *510 evidence, as the state failed to establish her intent to take the funds. … This argument is based upon appellant's assertion that she was not qualified to act as her own counsel, and, thus, was unable to competently protect her rights during the trial.

State v. Roberts

2021 Ohio 90 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 2021

The jury was clearly capable of segregating the evidence of the multiple charges when, as in the present case, the evidence of each crime is uncomplicated. See State v. … (B)(1)(a) Except as provided in division (B)(1)(b) of this section, if an offender is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony of the fourth or fifth degree that is not an offense of violence or that is a qualifying

State v. Tate

2014 Ohio 5269 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2014

be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. {¶28} Culver’s testimony plainly did not qualify … Specifically, the court stated: In establishing whether kidnapping and another offense of the same or similar kind are committed with a separate animus as to each pursuant to R.C. 2941.25(B), this

In re B.P.

2023 Ohio 1377 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2023

Thus, this factor weighed in favor of permanent custody because the children were clearly not comfortable visiting their parents. … Vicens testified that the agency attempted to find relatives who might qualify to serve as alternative caregivers for the children, but those efforts were not successful. (Tr. 76-78, 83, 88-89.)

State v. Beard

177 N.E.3d 591 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2021

In a plain-error analysis, the appellant bears the burden on demonstrating that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would clearly have been different. State v. … As previously stated, in a plain-error analysis, the appellant bears the burden on demonstrating that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would clearly have been different.

Genesis Outdoor, Inc. v. Poland Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals

2013 Ohio 1425 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2013

This clearly presented a content- based distinction. … Id. at 540-541. {¶30} The resolution here permits billboards in Poland Township and does not qualify the types of content they may provide.

State v. Brown

2013 Ohio 1579 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2013

He testified that only five jobs were listed in the classified ads, and that he was not qualified for two of those. … “It is an affirmative defense to a charge of * * * failure to provide support established by a court order under division (B) of this section that the accused was unable to provide adequate support or the established support

State v. Ashcraft

180 N.E.3d 630 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2021

but not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established … “[I]f such intent is clearly expressed therein, the statute may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or abridged.” State ex rel. McGraw v.

Zhuravlyov v. Bun

2020 Ohio 4108 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2020

The Court, however, additionally held “[a]s an exception to the general rule, an owner is permitted to testify concerning the value of his property without being qualified as an expert, because he is presumed to be familiar … The income assistance of wife’s parents was clearly an appropriate factor for the court to entertain in arriving at an equitable spousal-support order. {¶43} The magistrate expressly considered all the statutory

State v. Hodge

2019 Ohio 4012 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2019

A trial court's findings of no discriminatory intent will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. State v. … Appellant's Brief at 12, 18 (noting that inferences of discriminatory purpose may be established from indications other than a "pattern" of strikes). But Mr.

State v. McClain

2025 Ohio 577 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2025

Id. at ¶ 27. 8  {¶ 22} In evaluating a manifest weight challenge involving self-defense, we must review the entire record, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether the trier of fact clearly … (Where hospital records are properly endorsed and certified by a qualified representative in accordance with 2317.422(A), “no further authentication is needed for them to be admissible.”).