Case law

State v. Gegia

157 Ohio App. 3d 112 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2004

The burden of establishing manifest injustice is on the movant. Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. … pursuant to R.C. 2311.14(A), which provides: “(A)(1) Whenever because of a hearing, speech, or other impairment a party to or witness in a legal proceeding cannot readily understand or communicate, the court shall appoint a qualified

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.

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. 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.

Caldwell v. Custom Craft Builders, Inc.

2025 Ohio 828 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2025

Q: How do we make sure people are qualified when licensed contractors let people that aren’t licensed work under their permit? A: The licensed contractor is responsible for the job. … Generally, an individual is immune for the wrongful acts of a corporate entity. See Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners’ Assn. v. Roark Cos., 67 Ohio St. 3d 274, 287 (1993).

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.

Keister v. Park Centre Lanes

3 Ohio App. 3d 19 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 1981

Does the defendant have the burden of negativing breach or the plaintiff the burden of establishing breach? … of the complaint, but says he wins anyway because of some meritorious defense, such as immunity, contributory negligence or assumption of risk.

State v. Rogers, Unpublished Decision (4-27-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1999

Appellant claims Detective Hartmeyer was merely an evidence technician and therefore, was not qualified to conduct tests or interpret test results. … Appellant further notes the prosecution did not qualify Detective Hartmeyer as an expert witness under Evid.R. 702.

In Re Estate of Sells

15 Ohio App. 2d 23 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1968

The Testator’s Intent No rule of law is more clearly established than that: “In construing a trust, the settlor’s intention controls and is to be ascertained and given effect, unless opposed to law or public policy.” (90 … Unless clearly directed by trust instrument, trustee should not indefinitely hold unproductive securities.”

State v. S.R.S.

2024 Ohio 2195 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 2024

Had appellant pled guilty to the offense as indicted, it would have qualified as an offense of violence. … Unlike the defendant in Cargill, S.R.S. pled guilty to the charge as specified in the indictment, and nothing was deleted due to the plea agreement. {¶ 63} The law is well-established that “ ‘[a] guilty plea admits

O'Brien v. Dept. of Transp.

2019 Ohio 724 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2019

Although there was much testimony regarding the use of the words "turn" and "curve," the photographs and video of the roadway clearly show that to remain on SR 95 southbound … The trial court erred in holding that ODOT is immune for its negligence in posting several discretionary signs that attempted to warn of an impending intersection.

State v. Springer

2017 Ohio 8861 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2017

reviewing court must examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the witnesses’ credibility, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly … Therefore, Springer’s argument lacks merit. {¶23} Springer next argues that his attorney was ineffective because he failed to object to statements made during the state’s closing argument that Springer suggests 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.

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.

Smith v. Jones

175 Ohio App. 3d 705 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2007

Our role is only to determine whether the current method chosen by the legislature is clearly unconstitutional. Desenco, Inc. v. … Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted

State v. Huffman

2024 Ohio 1723 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 6, 2024

.” {¶13} From the foregoing, the State provided evidence establishing Mr. Huffman’s presence within 500 feet of C.P. … Killing others and burning down a residence qualify as “serious physical harm to persons” and “serious physical harm to property” under R.C. 2901.01(A)(5)(b) and (A)(6)(a) and (b). C.P. expressed fear of Mr.

McCoy v. Murray, 4-08-36 (4-6-2009)

2009 Ohio 1658 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2009

To qualify for the defense, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had no reason to anticipate or foresee the sudden loss of consciousness. Dunlap v. W.L. … If the defense of sudden medical emergency is available, and that question has been answered in the affirmative, it is clearly applicable in the instant case.

Fedex Corp. Servs., Inc. v. Brandes Internatl. Co.

2020 Ohio 3449 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2020

This is a well- established policy to which there are no exceptions. 8. … We do not have a copy of Federal Express’s invoice for that payment and the person who made that payment does not work here any longer, but the payment is recorded as and clearly assumed to be the duty and

Air-Ride v. Dhl Express (Usa), Ca2008-01-001 (11-3-2008)

2008 Ohio 5669 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2008

"`Testimony' * * * is `[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.'" Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36 , 51 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , quoting 2 N. … Both the affidavit and the email were clearly about the same subject. When the affidavit was filed, it waived any claimed privilege over attorney-client communications on that particular subject.

Thompson v. Bayer

2011 Ohio 5897 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2011

Appellee also alleged Appellant had held himself out as qualified to repair submersible pumps, when he was not. … In overruling the motion, the court found Appellant had not established he was entitled to relief under subsection (1), mistake or excusable neglect.