Case law

Dayton v. Siff

232 N.E.3d 480 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2023

Here, the photo-enforcement scheme qualifies as a special proceeding because it was created by statute and was not denoted as an action in law or suit in equity before 1853. {¶ 49} As to the second consideration … While this was her choice, it was not evidence rebutting the statutory presumption; in fact, Siff’s statements established nothing.

State v. Warren

2015 Ohio 3671 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2015

Its provenance was never established and it was not authenticated. … This printout does not qualify as a certified copy of a public record such that it was exempt from extrinsic evidence of authenticity pursuant to Evid.R. 902(4).

State v. Wood

2023 Ohio 2788 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2023

The question, therefore, is “whether, but for the error, the outcome of the proceedings clearly would have been otherwise.” (Emphasis sic.) State v. … Accordingly, Wood cannot establish plain error. {¶ 73} Moreover, in State v.

Envir. Netwrk v. Goodman, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2007)

2007 Ohio 831 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 2007

suits of merit, which in effect would immunize negligent attorneys. {¶ 21} "* * * {¶ 22} "Based on the abundance of testimony and documentary evidence presented by [appellees] at trial, [appellees] clearly proved `some evidence … (Order and Decision at 13-14.) {¶ 32} Finding that appellees provided sufficient evidence at trial to legally establish causation, the remaining question is whether sufficient evidence was provided to establish recoverable

Wagner v. City of Cleveland

62 Ohio App. 3d 8 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1988

Plaintiffs then were given psychological tests and interviews to determine whether they were qualified to become police officers. … The commission’s role in the selection process of civil service applicants is to determine whether the applicants are qualified to be placed on an eligibility list.

In re Adoption of M.L.

2021 Ohio 2805 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2021

“To implicate R.C. 3107.07(K), the notice must clearly inform the recipient that he is required to file an objection to the petition within 14 days.” Id. at ¶ 15. C. … Thus, as there is no evidence that Sidney’s mailed objection came into the physical possession of the clerk on or before November 30, 2020, Sidney cannot rely on his mailed objection to establish that he filed an objection

McPherson v. Frankland, Unpublished Decision (3-7-2005)

2005 Ohio 1112 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2005

Until updated training was received, Appellant was not qualified to be employed as a police officer. … Haas, who, in granting the summary judgment motion of Appellee, held in part: {¶ 25} "The Ohio Supreme Court has held that in order for the employer to be vicariously liable under such circumstances when the plaintiff can establish

State v. Pesec, 2006-P-0084 (7-27-2007)

2007 Ohio 3846 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2007

An owner of personal property is qualified to give an opinion as to the value of personal property. State v. Clements (Jan. 30, 1978), 8th Dist. No. 36914, 1978 Ohio App. LEXIS, at 5, citing Bishop v. … Furthermore, the evidence established that the equipment was removed with guns drawn.

State v. Lamb

163 Ohio App. 3d 290 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2005

. * * * Clearly, with multiple arrests on warrants [for non-payment], Swift had served out the one day necessary to eliminate the $50 fine”). … It does not permit slavery or involuntary servitude to be established or maintained through the operation of the criminal law by making it a crime to refuse to submit to the one or to render the service which would constitute

State v. Starling

2019 Ohio 1478 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2019

Id. at 451. {¶ 31} After reviewing the video evidence of Starling’s confession, we do not find that the confession was clearly excludable. … We note that “the evidence presented at the probable cause hearing ‘does not have to be unassailable’ to qualify as credible.”

State v. Warmus

197 Ohio App. 3d 383 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2011

Duncan (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 215, 373 N.E.2d 1234, the Ohio Supreme Court established a four-part test to determine whether a hearsay statement is admissible under Evid.R. 803(2): the proponent of the statement must establish … Plain error exists only if “the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v.

Campbell v. Smith

2011 Ohio 3002 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2011

Therefore, Zoning Resolutions must be strictly construed in favor of the property owner, and the scope of the restrictions cannot be extended to include limitations not clearly prescribed. … zoning change, and that the use was lawful at the time it was established.

State v. Savage

2025 Ohio 1206 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2025

conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified … “Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been different.” Id. at ¶ 23, citing State v.

Fraelich v. Western Reserve Care System, Unpublished Decision (3-22-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1999

Therefore, appellant argued it was entitled to a reduction in the verdict by the amount of the write-off as such qualified as a collateral recovery pursuant to statute. … Thus, clearly the only evidence presented in the record before us was that the decedent's total medical expenses were $447,030.92.

State v. Turner

236 N.E.3d 945 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 2024

“Even * * * ‘momentary’ restraint may qualify as [a]bduction, if it produces the required risk of physical harm to, or fear in, the victim.’ ” State v. Saylor, 2d Dist. … and punching her several times after raping and body-slamming her qualified as a separate restraint of C.W.’s liberty by force that placed C.W. in fear and created a risk of physical harm.

Harning v. Cromes

39 Ohio Law. Abs. 513 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 1943

If the entry had been so worded as to set forth the fact, then we would clearly have before us the question whether for any reason a record had not been taken in the Probate Court. … It thus became a factual question whether or not the applicant was competent to act as the fiduciary for her mother’s estate, which like any other issue could •only be established by some form of proof known to the law.

State v. Miami Board of Mental Ret., Unpublished Decision (9-28-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2001

The trial court dismissed the claims against Turner in her official and individual capacities on the basis of qualified immunity. … In light of our disposition of the first assignment of error, it is unnecessary for us to review the trial court's decisions on the issue of qualified immunity. Oaks' claim under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.

State v. Herring

2023 Ohio 4851 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2023

Herring has made no attempt to explain why their statements did not qualify as such under the circumstances. He has not set forth any law or argument regarding the application of Evid.R. 803(2). … The footage clearly depicted the man in a front facing view. At trial, Detective Franco identified the man as Mr. Herring. Mr.

State v. Rusnak

2016 Ohio 7820 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 2016

The state has no duty to present evidence justifying a delay until the defendant establishes actual prejudice. State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5105, ¶ 18. … What any of this may have revealed and whether any exculpatory evidence would have been brought to light is clearly speculative, at best.

Hurier v. Ohio D.O.T., Unpublished Decision (9-3-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 2002

Box, who opined that ODOT surely inspected the walls pursuant to the permit process, and, by virtue of the fact that they still exist, ODOT clearly approved the construction. … Appellants argue alternatively that the brick structure was a qualified nuisance. A qualified nuisance is premised upon negligence. To recover damages for a qualified nuisance, negligence must be averred and proven.