Case law

Thompson v. Hayes, Unpublished Decision (11-14-2006)

2006 Ohio 6000 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2006

No agency may establish, by rule or otherwise, a policy governing medicaid that is inconsistent with a medicaid policy established, in rule or otherwise, by the director of job and family services. … They also argued that the language of the August 28, 2003 consent order clearly indicates that OPRA members were included as plaintiffs only for purposes of availing themselves of the limited protection of that order.

State v. Beasley, Unpublished Decision (10-11-2007)

2007 Ohio 5432 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 2007

Finally, the judge must then determine if the defendant established purposeful discrimination. … That clearly indicates that the judge overruled the objection.

Ledford v. Board of Zoning Appeals

171 Ohio App. 3d 24 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2007

The trial court explained that under Dayton Revised Code of General Ordinances, §§ 150.183, 150.348, ‘automobile repair garage’ is qualified as either commercial and non-residential, or ‘business and industrial use’ within … Clearly omitted from this list is any work constituting routine maintenance, such as oil changes or minor repairs. {¶ 31} In the present case, the BZA argues that the trial court erred when it found that the Ledfords were

South v. Toledo Edison Co.

32 Ohio App. 3d 24 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1986

Evidence of the letters was, for this reason, clearly admissible. See Thomas v. Resort Health Related Facility (E.D.N.Y. 1982), 539 F. Supp. 630, 637-638 . … However, in the instant case, the evidence clearly demonstrates that appellant’s employment remained, at all times, terminable-at-will.

Haynes v. Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority

188 Ohio App. 3d 337 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2010

Chapter 163.51 et seq., was enacted pursuant to mandate set forth in the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, which required states to “enact similar statutes in order to qualify for federal … Had Congress intended to prohibit the application of any state legislation, it could have included language clearly expressing that intent. Thus, we conclude that the trial court erred in its determination that R.C.

State v. Barton

71 Ohio App. 3d 455 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 1991

Their testimony established that on Wednesday, August 16, 1989, Howell and her ex-husband’s sister brought Billy to Children’s Hospital Medical Center for an examination of bruises on his buttocks. … Partin was qualified as an expert by experience and training.

Myers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., Unpublished Decision (12-29-2003)

2003 Ohio 7112 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2003

under Chapter 2744 of the Ohio Revised Code or a diplomatic immunity." {¶ 41} Appellee argues that appellants have failed to identify for the court a citation in the policy which clearly refers to the application of Ohio … In Csulik, the court found that the insurance policy clearly stated controlling state law in some portions of the contract and was ambiguous as to other portions.

McClure v. McClure

98 Ohio App. 3d 27 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 1994

The child support schedule does not establish a presumed support obligation when the income of the parents falls below $6,600. … The trial court has discretion to award spousal support to help the spouse obtain education to qualify her for appropriate employment.

Burns-Boggs v. Howerton, Unpublished Decision (8-4-2006)

2006 Ohio 4002 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2006

This claim mischaracterizes the form, which clearly indicates that the statements are limited to the owner's actual knowledge. … Without evidence that Howerton did know or had reason to know, the Boggses failed to establish negligent misrepresentation.

State v. Spells

2024 Ohio 6052 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2024

In some instances certain facts can only be established by circumstantial evidence.”). … “Privilege” means an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or implied grant, arising out of status, position, office, or relationship, or growing out of necessity.

State v. Burns

2016 Ohio 7375 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2016

Though clearly negligent in failing to comply with Criminal Rule 16, such negligence does not necessarily establish willfulness. {¶62} Appellant was aware items consistent with the manufacture of methamphetamine … Collins,799 F.3d 554, (6th Cir. 2015), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found an Appriss, Inc. employee a "qualified witness" for the purpose of authenticating NPLEX records as business records under Fed. R.

State v. Ginley, 90724 (1-8-2009)

2009 Ohio 30 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 8, 2009

Adams (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 67 , 68 , 538 N.E.2d 1025 , we adopted the rule established in State v. … This defect clearly permeated the defendant's entire criminal proceeding.

State v. Davis

214 N.E.3d 1148 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 17, 2023

Petro at syllabus. {¶34} In determining whether recanted testimony qualifies as newly discovered evidence, this Court has consistently applied the well-settled test set forth in Brown at ¶ 20, which provides: … Clearly, by its own statement, the trial court followed Petro, even referencing specifically the first Petro factor (“strong probability that it will change the result if a new trial is granted”).

State v. DeBartolo

2012 Ohio 3449 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2012

Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence. {¶63} DeBartolo further claims that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting state’s witness Jessica Toms, who was qualified … sustains the issue which is to be established before them.

Lakeshore Properties v. City, Sharonville, Unpublished Decision (2-16-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2001

The record establishes that a trucking facility was operated at 1985 Crescentville Road, a site that had been zoned "general industrial" since 1960. … Clearly these credentials qualified Dale as an expert pursuant to Evid.R. 702(B).

State v. Rodenberger

2020 Ohio 6979 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2020

She was qualified, without objection, as an expert witness in nursing and sexual assault examination and permitted to testify in that capacity. … “[I]t is well-established that ‘a conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence solely because the jury heard inconsistent testimony.’” State v.

City of Huber Heights v. Liakos

145 Ohio App. 3d 35 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2001

Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to ‘ “steer far wider of the unlawful zone” * * * than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.’ ” Grayned, supra, 408 U.S. at 109, 92 S.Ct. at 2299 , 33 L.Ed … However, we agree that requiring a permit applicant to consent in advance to unlimited searches of his establishment is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

State v. Mack

2023 Ohio 4374 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2023

“‘Privilege’ means an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or implied grant, arising out of status, position, office, or relationship, or growing out of necessity.” … “In there” clearly refers to J.C.’s vagina and not her panties. She was asked if he was “trying to touch her vagina” and she replied, “no, he got in there.”

Craft, Exrx. v. Shroyer

81 Ohio App. 253 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1947

Furthermore, in support of our conclusion that the intention of the testatrix was narrow and specific rather than general, we point out that she restricted the class of beneficiaries to a point where few children could qualify … In the instant case the testatrix, in the first paragraph of her will, manifested very clearly her intention to create a charitable trust, the beneficiaries of which should be “full orphans of the United Lutheran Church of

Bicudo v. Lexford Properties, Inc.

157 Ohio App. 3d 509 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 2004

The trial court clearly understood the nature of appellees’ JNOV motion and ruled accordingly. … Under this exception, an employer who wrongfully discharges an employee in violation of a clearly expressed public policy will be subject to an action for damages.