Case law

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.

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 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.

Beavercreek v. Levalley, 06-Ca-51 (4-27-2007)

2007 Ohio 2105 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2007

Nor does the existence of uncalled witnesses establish that LeValley's convictions are contrary to law. Moreover, the affidavits do not qualify as newly discovered evidence. … evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider witness credibility, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact "clearly

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. 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

Johnston v. Shale Play Land Servs., Inc. & Taurus Corp. & Andrews

2024 Ohio 5934 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2024

She argues this constituted fraud in the execution, which doctrine would render the deed void (rather than merely voidable) and thus immune from a bona fide purchaser argument by Taurus. {¶3} Appellant claims the … A holding which would substitute constructive notice, in the absence of a record, for actual knowledge, would clearly violate this statute . . .

State v. Counts

201 N.E.3d 942 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2022

“It is well established that the mere probability of deleterious effects on fundamental rights calls for close judicial scrutiny.” Lane at 115. Id. at ¶ 7-8. … As the lead opinion outlines, the Ohio Supreme Court has likened the constitutional right to refuse discovery to a qualified privilege.

Caiazza v. Mercy Med. Ctr.

2014 Ohio 2290 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 27, 2014

Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00181 16 The sexual harassment claim clearly fails. … employee was not terminated, thereby failing to establish the second prong above.

McNichols v. McNichols

2013 Ohio 4935 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2013

court is to examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury [or finder of fact] clearly … 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

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.

State v. Gibbons, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2000

To establish a "particularized need", the accused must show that his need for the information outweighs the need to maintain secrecy of the grand jury proceedings. … The possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish materiality.

Burger Dynasty, Inc. v. Bar 145 Franchising, L.L.C.

2019 Ohio 4006 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2019

Therefore, as the FDD qualifies as a business opportunity plan appellees were required to meet the requirements of BOPA or meet an exemption. … Appellees have the burden of establishing that the omission was due to such an error by a preponderance of the evidence.

Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. v. Ryan

2014 Ohio 3932 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 2014

Although "[i]t begins with a balance preferably at zero, or with a sum recited that can qualify as an account stated," the balance "at least * * * should be a provable sum. … No. 98753, 2013-Ohio-1041, ¶ 12. {¶ 42} In his tenth assignment of error, Ryan asserts that that the "Record lacks a copy of any alleged agreement clearly between Appellant and the Capital One Bank" and contends that

State v. Hill

2016 Ohio 5205 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2016

The testimony must establish that Hill had a prior plan or calculation to kill the passenger for Hill to be guilty of aggravated murder of the passenger. … The majority states in its decision that there was no testimony establishing that Hill had a prior plan or calculation to kill the passenger of the vehicle rather than the driver.

In Re M.E., Unpublished Decision (4-13-2006)

2006 Ohio 1837 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2006

R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) has been established as it relates to H.P. CCDCFS took H.P. into custody on March 6, 2003, where he has since remained. … Accordingly, H.P. clearly qualified for permanent placement under the requirement of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). {¶ 11} Moreover, R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) has been met as it relates to the remaining three children.

Thompson v. City of Brook Park, Unpublished Decision (9-23-2004)

2004 Ohio 5024 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2004

A qualified nuisance is premised upon negligence. To recover damages for a qualified nuisance, negligence must be averred and proven. Allen Freight Lines, Inc. v. Consol. Rail Corp. (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 274 , 276 . … B {¶ 8} The court clearly erred when it stated its belief that Thompson himself had to testify and state that he struck the tire.

In Re M.E.G., 06ap-1256 (8-23-2007)

2007 Ohio 4308 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2007

Fournier was qualified to testify regarding M.E.G.'s statements under Evid.R. 803(4), many of the statements provided were not pertinent to medical diagnosis and treatment and were therefore, inadmissible. … Seasons Coal , supra. {¶ 61} This is clearly a case that centers on the victim's allegations.