Case law

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.

State v. Powers, 23400 (6-6-2007)

2007 Ohio 2738 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2007

To qualify as an excited utterance or spontaneous exclamation, the statement must meet a four-part test: "`(a) that there was some occurrence startling enough to produce a nervous excitement in the declarant, which was sufficient … This line of questioning was designed to establish a motive for the change in her testimony.

Bram v. M. Weingold Co., Unpublished Decision (3-30-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2000

Here, any alleged slander is clearly a result of appellant's interpretation of the words through innuendo, and, therefore, is slander per quod . … Because there was no publication by appellee to a third party, however, the doctrine of qualified privilege is not applicable.

Cox v. Oliver

2016 Ohio 4575 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2016

Scholler, 10 Ohio St.3d 98, 462 N.E.2d 158 (1984), which provides: “An attorney is immune from liability to third persons arising from his performance as an attorney in good faith on behalf of, and with the knowledge of … The trial court concluded that Cox could not establish being in privity with the school district.

State v. Thompson

2023 Ohio 4805 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2023

The court noted that the language in R.C. 2929.15(A)(1), stating the five-year limitation applicable to community control sanctions imposed “under this division,” clearly “limit[ed] R.C. 2929.15(A)(1)’s five- year maximum … Considering the history of this case, we find the trial court should establish a specific monthly amount appellant must pay toward his restitution to comply with his community control sanctions.

City Rentals, Inc. v. Kesler

191 Ohio App. 3d 474 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2010

. {¶ 20} In order to qualify as a holder in due course, a person must meet all the statutory requirements. Arcanum Natl. Bank v. Hessler (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 549, 552, 433 N.E.2d 204. … Once a person has demonstrated entitlement to holder-in-due-course status, he is immunized from most of the obligor’s claims and defenses, including a claim for unjust enrichment. See Dice v.

State v. Jones

2019 Ohio 301 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2019

Against appellant’s objection, the trial court qualified Noel as an expert, stating as follows: 15. … Here, appellant clearly sought such help during voir dire.

State v. Nicholson, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2006)

2006 Ohio 1569 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2006

THE FAILURE OF THE COURT TO REQUIRE THE STATE TO QUALIFY DETECTIVE FREEHOFFER AS AN EXPERT AND TO ESTABLISH APPELLANT'S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT ON A CHARGE OF AGGRAVATED ROBBERY WITH A THREE YEAR … Under Evid.R. 702, we conclude that Detective Freehoffer was properly qualified as an expert when he testified about the gun defendant used during the robbery. {¶ 44} Even if the detective failed to qualify as a expert, however

Hall v. Banc One Management Corp., Unpublished Decision (2-28-2006)

2006 Ohio 913 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2006

It is undisputed that Hall was a member of the protected class and was discharged from a position for which she was qualified. … For example, while recognizing the insufficiency of evidence that the employer retained younger persons in other jobs that the plaintiff was qualified to perform, the Sixth Circuit stated that a plaintiff can establish the

State Ex Rel. Jeany v. Cleveland Concrete, Unpublished Decision (11-4-2004)

2004 Ohio 5842 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2004

In Jeany, this court found some evidence clearly supported the commission's finding that the relator had voluntarily retired. Id. at ¶ 9. … Clearly, the SHO could have determined that the report of Ms. Williams was not credible evidence.

Clinton County General Health District v. Rolfe

83 Ohio App. 3d 366 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1992

A review of both R.C. 3733.01(A) and the placement of the manufactured homes on appellees’ property clearly evidences an intent on the part of appellees to exclude the park from the reach of the statute. … area can be considered a ‘tract,’ it has sufficient manufactured home sites to constitute a manufactured home park, but if the smaller units of land are considered as ‘tracts’ in their own right, none of the smaller units qualify

In re G.T.

2022 Ohio 1406 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2022

The court also found that Mother “has limited English proficiency and requires a qualified Swahili interpreter to assist [Mother] at future hearings.” … Mother believed that qualifying for financial assistance would meet the “adequate income” portion of the case plan.

Nelson v. Univ. of Cincinnati

2017 Ohio 514 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2017

the manifest-weight standard, a court of appeals 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 … qualified for the position, and (4) was replaced by a person outside the protected class or that the employer treated a similarly situated, non- protected person more favorably.

State v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (8-31-2006)

2006 Ohio 4628 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2006

The Hearing Officer finds that the drug test provided for by the employer was not a qualifying drug test as that term is used under ORC 4123.54 (C). … Furthermore, questions of credibility and the weight to be given evidence are clearly within the discretion of the commission as fact finder. State ex rel. Teece v. Indus.

State v. Canankamp

2023 Ohio 43 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2023

Standard of Review {¶11} Manifest “weight of the evidence and sufficiency of the evidence are clearly different legal concepts.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 389 (1997). … For an unavailable witness’s statements to qualify under the statement against interest exception, the State must have established that (1) [the witness] was unavailable as a witness, (2) the statements

Spectrum Benefit Options, Inc. v. Medical Mutual

174 Ohio App. 3d 29 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 2007

Clearly there is no problem, and we are pleased to have MMO as our partner in this project. … MMO initially issued a number of quotes, per the terms of our agreement, to qualifying members. Recently, however, MMO has refused to issue proposals to qualifying members who have submitted requests.

State v. Foster

2011 Ohio 2781 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2011

Plain error does not exist unless the appellant establishes that the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different but for the trial court’s allegedly improper actions. State v. … Both doctors were highly qualified and presented differing theories on the cause of death. We cannot say that the jury lost its way when it believed Dr. Galita over Dr.

Burkey v. Canal Winchester Bank

20 Ohio Law. Abs. 656 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1935

In this case as in the cited -case the doctrine of estoppel, by reason of the general covenant of warranty, must be qualified and held not to apply because it clearly appears that the mortgagors intended to convey no greater … The rule is well established that where the mortgagor does not have the title covenanted, but subsequently acquires such title, it inures by way of estoppel to the mortgagee.

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.

Odjfs v. Pete F., Unpublished Decision (11-10-2005)

2005 Ohio 6006 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2005

This statutory confidentiality is qualified and can be modified with the consent of the court. … In support, appellant argues that Carol F. was not qualified to tender the disputed testimony.