Case law

State v. Clark

2017 Ohio 7633 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2017

“Under Evid.R. 701, courts have permitted lay witnesses to express their opinions in areas in which it would ordinarily be expected that an expert must be qualified under Evid.R. 702.” State v. Primeau, 8th Dist. … This foundation may be established through direct or cross-examination. Id. {¶ 40} After Baker had testified, Officer Olmsted took the stand.

State v. Mitchell

2016 Ohio 7691 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2016

Although De Marchis did not believe Mitchell was suffering from any true psychosis that would qualify as a mental disease or defect at the time in question, he opined that Mitchell’s reported symptoms, if they really existed … Strictly speaking, this response does not establish that Mitchell failed to know the wrongfulness of his conduct.

Berger v. Berger

3 Ohio App. 3d 125 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1981

R. 4, quoted earlier, clearly seeks to restrict case assignments in a manner that will eliminate whimsical transfers. … However, all persons acting here were regularly serving as qualified judges of that court.

In re B.D.

2020 Ohio 1005 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 2020

Appellant L.D. would not have qualified for a card. … Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would have clearly been otherwise. State v.

Lake Front Med., L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce

202 N.E.3d 156 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2022

Consequently, LFM’s Qualify Assurance Plan must be awarded a passing score. Therefore, the Final Order is not in accordance with law in violation of R.C. 119.12(D). {¶35} “[4.] … This set of rules was established through Chapter 3796 of the Ohio Administrative Code.

State v. Cervantes

2022 Ohio 2536 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2022

We disagree. {¶38} Abandonment is an affirmative defense that places burden on the defendant to establish the facts to support the defense. … “An error qualifies as ‘plain error’ only if it is obvious and but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding clearly would have been otherwise.” Id.

State v. Moulder, Unpublished Decision (10-3-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 2002

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. … In reviewing the testimony of Detective Booth, we cannot conclude that the appellant was so prejudiced as to establish that the outcome of the trial would clearly have been different.

State v. Wilcox

2016 Ohio 7865 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2016

R.C. 2911.21. " 'Privilege' means an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or No. 15AP-957 14 implied grant, arising … Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 2002-Ohio-68, 759 N.E.2d 1240, and "but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise." State v.

Myers v. Trustees of the S.R.W. District, Unpublished Decision (4-19-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1999

The language of R.C. 6119.05 unequivocally and clearly reads that the board of trustees' approval of the inclusion will not take effect if a majority of the qualified electors file a written remonstrance with the secretary … Appellant was clearly given such opportunity.

Am. Energy-Utica, L.L.C. v. Fuller

2018 Ohio 3250 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2018

Ohio Adm.Code 1509:9–1–04(C)(4)(a) provides that wells of the depth of the subject well must be situated upon a minimum of forty acres to establish a drilling unit. R.C. … In our view, such retroactive application clearly violated Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution by impairing an obligation of contract. See Kiser v.

Berkshire Bank v. Macedonia Hospitality, L.L.C.

2024 Ohio 2485 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2024

(“The Participation Agreement * * * was clearly an agreement between the Bank and the Small Business Administration for their mutual benefit and created no legal rights or duties in the Defendants. … In granting summary judgment, the trial court concluded that the requirement to file a litigation plan set forth in 13 C.F.R. 120.540(c) does not establish a condition precedent.

State v. Banks, Unpublished Decision (12-7-2004)

2004 Ohio 6522 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2004

His alleged statement of "there he goes" would similarly qualify as a present sense impression. … Clearly, holding someone at gunpoint could be perceived to be a "force or threat."

Wright v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

2013 Ohio 2260 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2013

. {¶3} Wright filed an application for unemployment benefits, which was assigned two different identification numbers as his qualifying employment period overlapped benefit years. … The medical report Wright submitted in support of his benefits claim also does not definitively establish that his medical conditions impeded his continuation as a regional route driver.

State v. Davis

2012 Ohio 788 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 29, 2012

. {¶9} To establish that his lawyer was ineffective, Mr. … Davis had been convicted of a qualifying offense. {¶13} Regarding Mr.

Krier v. Franklin County Board of Revision

100 Ohio App. 3d 344 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1994

On August 6,1992, the BOR issued a decision maintaining the value of the properties as originally established. An appeal to the BTA ensued. … The record before us clearly establishes that the contesting of real estate valuations has become somewhat of a *349 cottage industry in Ohio.

Seaford v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

159 Ohio App. 3d 374 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2004

Rules may be adopted to provide for the temporary assignment of judges to sit and hold court in any court established by law. Section 5(A)(3), Article IV. … Ayers clearly held that FELA admits apportionment between an employer and employee based on comparative fault, but not, however, between employers.

Bishop & Babcock Co. v. Furrer

36 Ohio Law. Abs. 116 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1931

This is a right which the stockholder clearly can enforce against the corporation by reason of *119 ownership of certain stock, the evidence of which are the certificates representative thereof, designation and identity of … Thompson on Corporations, Vol. 5, p. 323, quoting Bridgman v Keokuk, 72 Iowa 42 : “The expression of shares of stock when qualified by words, indicating number and ownership expresses the extent of the owner’s interest in

State ex rel. Coltrane v. Indus. Comm.

2021 Ohio 3421 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2021

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. … The Ohio Administrative Code is explicit and detailed regarding the documentary requirements needed to establish a qualifying job search.

State v. Quigley, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2005)

2005 Ohio 5276 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2005

In doing so, the detective was clearly using the explanations as a means of requiring appellant to consider the ramifications of his statements further. … However, her testimony clearly manifested that this limitation did not extend to her ability to determine whether child abuse had occurred in a given case.

State v. Johnson

2013 Ohio 440 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2013

Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 607 (1998). {¶24} The Daubert rule clearly establishes that, as noted by the trial court, it is the obligation of the trial court to serve as the gatekeeper in determining and establishing … Thus, the central issue as presented in the case before us, does the Intoxilyzer 8000 qualify as “proper equipment”? The answer is “yes” if it is generally reliable and “no” if it is not.