Case law

Kokosing Construction Co. v. Dixon

72 Ohio App. 3d 320 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 1991

Springfield (1933), 48 Ohio App. 356, 362 , 1 O.O. 522 , 193 N.E. 788 : “ * * * [a] court cannot interfere in the exercise of * * * discretion unless it clearly appears that city authorities in whom such discretion has been … standards for deciding by how ‘many percentages’ a bid may exceed the lowest bid and yet still qualify as the ‘lowest and best’ bid.

In re A.P.

2025 Ohio 219 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2025

The record establishes that the juvenile court repeatedly ordered A.P.’s placement at Hittle House in this case. … Even if the trial court erred in this determination, Appellant did not establish that his time at Hittle House constituted confinement.

State v. Von Harris

2025 Ohio 279 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2025

(B) No person, either before or after the person is elected, appointed, qualified, employed, summoned, or sworn as a public servant or party official, shall knowingly solicit or accept for self or another … Harrison, 2009-Ohio-3547, ¶ 61, (an error rises to the level of plain error only if, “‘but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise’”), quoting State v.

Smallwood v. Shiflet

2016 Ohio 7887 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2016

However, the record clearly demonstrates that Shiflet did file a correspondence that was construed as an answer. … The trial court denied Smallwood’s motion. {¶31} The question before us is whether Shiflet’s communication to the trial court, which he failed to serve upon Smallwood, properly qualified as an answer such that the

State v. Campbell

2019 Ohio 5004 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2019

(warrant containing long list of generic items was not overly broad because the warrant “expressly qualified each item to be seized as being connected with drug trafficking”); State v. Gonzales, 3d Dist. … [That provision] clearly 32. means what it says: such a sentence cannot be reviewed.” State v.

Mullins v. Wicker

2017 Ohio 5663 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2017

No. 16CA872 17 {¶26} The trial court subsequently issued a decision finding that a May 10, 1995 “meeting” did not qualify as either a regular business meeting … Our review of the record revealed competent, credible evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that the “meetings” in question did not qualify as either regular business meetings or special business meetings, and

Al-Quaadir v. Budget Rent a Car, 23790 (2-27-2008)

2008 Ohio 780 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2008

However, even a cursory reading of Archer clarifies that private persons do not enjoy absolute immunity from liability. … In this case, the evidence establishes that Budget's agent did not direct, request or pressure any official to initiate or continue criminal proceedings against Al-Quaadir. The evidence further establishes that Ms.

Maschari v. Tone

157 Ohio App. 3d 366 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 2004

Contestor responds that the final results of the election *370 were not certified until March 26, 2004 and, therefore, this action was “clearly-filed within the period permitted by the statute.” {¶ 10} R.C. 3515.09 dictates … Bd. of Elections (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 57, 58 , 51 O.O.2d 92 , 258 N.E.2d 227 (“[W]hen one votes at a primary he necessarily establishes some party affiliation or membership.”).

Schaffer v. Donegan

66 Ohio App. 3d 528 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 18, 1990

The failure to object to a jury instruction constitutes a waiver of any claim of error relative thereto, unless, but for the error, the outcome clearly would have been otherwise State v. … Donegan's initial deposition was qualified by him at that time, reserving the right to form his final opinion when he acquired all of the information available. "I am unable to answer the first question 'Did Dr.

Garber v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio

2020 Ohio 2909 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 12, 2020

Garber's due process rights have not been violated because the law clearly indicated that * * * a hearing ['to ascertain the validity of the Board's reason to believe'] is not a legal right." Id. … threshold" requirement) with latitude on the necessity to afford such a hearing at all. {¶ 19} The "threshold" may not be steep, but it also may not be ignored; any board conclusion that it has been met is not somehow immunized

Seringetti Construction Co. v. City of Cincinnati

51 Ohio App. 3d 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1988

Division 1, section 01020, subsection 1.03, establishes a $3,000 cash allowance for builder’s hardware and refers the contractor to section 08700. … Representatives of parties required to attend shall be qualified and authorized to act on behalf of the parties they represent.

State v. Lee

2017 Ohio 7377 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2017

To constitute plain error, an error must be an obvious defect that would clearly, but for the error, have resulted in a different outcome of the trial. State v. … Thus, even if this procedure qualified as a “show up” identification, Lee’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress 15

State v. Miller

2014 Ohio 261 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2014

(Id. at 285-286); 7 The trial court qualified Dr. McDavid as an expert witness regarding medical diagnosis and treatment, as well as child abuse. (Mar. 13-14, 2013 Tr., Vol. Two, at 278). … The jury did not clearly lose its way as to the fourth element of the offense.

In re D.C.

2015 Ohio 3178 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2015

Appellant was named as a party in both cases and informed of his right to counsel in both cases, including his right to have counsel appointed to him free of charge if he qualified for such assistance. … Appellant acknowledges that he has not bonded with his children but contends that this is not his fault and that such a bond could be established quickly.

City of Columbus Ex Rel. Willits v. Cremean

27 Ohio App. 2d 137 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 25, 1971

An applicant has been denied a permit for which he had qualified under existing legislation and regulation. The petitioner or complainant was not talking for others of a class. … The allegations of the “taxpayer” in his supplemental complaint clearly indicate no common interest with him as a taxpayer.

State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Mertz

253 N.E.3d 660 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2024

In September 2013, AWMS furnished a Confidential Offering Memorandum to potential qualified investors to raise the capital to construct the wells on the Site. … If they had them, the evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly what they were.

State v. Williams

2016 Ohio 322 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2016

Williams has not established that if more evidence was admitted regarding Billy’s statements or conduct that the jury would likely have reached a different conclusion. … R. 702(C), a witness is qualified to testify as an expert when specialized knowledge, training and experience provide the basis for relevant evidence that would assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or

State v. McIntosh

2022 Ohio 3771 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2022

The crime and its elements must be expressed clearly enough for an ordinary person to choose, in advance, what course he may lawfully pursue. (Citations omitted.) … T.M. clearly stated that McIntosh licked her vagina and put his penis in her vagina. This, of course, constitutes “sexual conduct.”

State v. Coy

2023 Ohio 1956 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2023

An appellate court may increase, modify, or vacate and remand a judgment only if it clearly and convincingly finds either “(a) the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section … 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

In re E.D.

194 Ohio App. 3d 534 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2011

The initial terms of the members of the committee who are qualified electors shall be one and two years. Thereafter, the members of the committee shall be appointed to two year terms. … However, the “specific intent” addition does not clearly specify what conduct an individual has the specific intent to engage in.