Case law

Conn Construction Co. v. Ohio Department of Transportation

14 Ohio App. 3d 90 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1983

The fact that the referee did not thereafter make any “substantive” changes does not diminish the validity of the report or establish any prejudice to Conn. … The referee clearly has the authority to admit and exclude evidence. Civ.

Langin v. Sheffield-Sheffield Lake Bd. of Edn.

2022 Ohio 879 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2022

immunity, and no private cause of action for damages under Ohio’s Constitution. … [The Langins] cannot establish standing absent a showing that they have suffered an injury: (1) fairly traceable to [the Board’s] allegedly unlawful conduct; and (2) likely to be redressed by the requested

Stubbs v. Mitchell

65 Ohio Law. Abs. 204 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 1952

Immunization. … Such interference with the natural right of acquisition and enjoyment guaranteed by the constitution, can only be justified when public necessity clearly demands it.

Surdel v. Metrohealth Medical Center

135 Ohio App. 3d 141 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 1999

R.C. 2151.421(A)(1) establishes a mandatory duty to report known or suspected child abuse and states: “(a) No person described in division (A)(1)(b) of this section who is acting in an official or professional capacity and … The qualifying language clarifies that the duty to report does not require absolute proof but rather is triggered when the condition reasonably indicates abuse or neglect.

Benge v. Jones

80 Ohio App. 3d 420 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1992

The evidence at trial definitely establishes that plaintiff’s life with the Jones family in rural Kentucky was very unpleasant. … Clearly, plaintiff failed to do this because her claims here were filed almost two decades later in 1989.

Greenview Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Staffco Constr., Inc.

2016 Ohio 7321 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2016

Assn. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 560 N.E.2d 206. “ ‘[T]he well-established general rule is that a plaintiff who has suffered only economic loss due to another's negligence has not been injured in a manner … We also note that the cases relied upon by Staffco to support its conclusion that the “property” as used in R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) includes purely economic loss are clearly distinguishable. In Hinkle v.

Koeppen v. Columbus

2015 Ohio 4463 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2015

Koeppen, unfortunately, did not testify clearly on that point. … Id. {¶ 14} Here, there is no dispute that the city established its immunity under the first tier of the immunity test.

Roberts v. Switzerland of Ohio Local School Dist.

2014 Ohio 78 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 7, 2014

would dissolve immunity. … Clearly, the complaint alleges a negligent act, the instruction by the Board’s agent that it was safe for Roberts to stand in an area that was not, in fact, safe.

Hoffman v. Gallia Cnty. Sheriff's Office

103 N.E.3d 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2017

Thus, they failed to meet their “onerous” burden to establish that the political subdivision and Deputy Johnson are not immune from liability. Id. at ¶31. … The standard of “due regard for safety” does not clearly or definitively define a precise duty or conduct, however.

Nadra v. Mbah, Unpublished Decision (2-6-2007)

2007 Ohio 501 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2007

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity: * * * [Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … immunity, the burden did not shift to appellant to refute appellees' entitlement to qualified immunity.

City of Cleveland v. Berger

91 Ohio App. 3d 102 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 1993

Berger has not established the applicability of preemption in this case. We overrule his sixth assignment of error. Berger also claims federal governmental immunity from prosecution. … Berger clearly had a beneficial interest in the operation of the apartment building.

Clark v. Campbell

2020 Ohio 3333 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2020

may be asserted to establish nonliability: *** (6) In addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section and in circumstances not covered Ross App … The court held: ‘Common law agency principles, however, are clearly trumped by the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act. See Reno v. City of Centerville, 2nd Dist.

Jones v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr.

2016 Ohio 4858 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2016

By Stewart’s reckoning, if the state has waived immunity from suit, political subdivisions can have no immunity of their own because their immunity is based on the state’s immunity. {¶12} Stewart’s argument is essentially … immune from civil liability is a question of law.

Mintz v. Village of Pepper Pike

57 Ohio App. 2d 185 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1978

Indeed, to prevail, this court has concluded that a litigant must: “clearly establish, in substance, that the legislative body could not have reasonably believed the necessity of regulation in the public interest outweighed … Taking all of the relevant factors and circumstances into account, we conclude that the appellees failed to establish heyond fair debate that the ordinance was clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no relation to publie

Veller v. K.B.

2025 Ohio 687 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2025

[Veller] can prove no set of facts establishing an exception to immunity . . . .” {¶ 13} Finally, the court rejected the commissioners’ request to dismiss Veller’s permanent injunction count, finding that “while … Under the notice pleading requirement of Civ.R. 8(A), a plaintiff is not required to plead the legal theories of recovery that she is relying on or clearly and exactly plead every element of every claim.

Booth v. Lazzara

2026 Ohio 225 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2026

In other words, a treating psychiatrist merely alleging "good faith" is generally insufficient to establish the affirmative defense of immunity; good faith must be sufficiently demonstrated by all the surrounding circumstances … This is established when considering the depositions and records submitted by Brandi combined with Dr.

Ervin v. Willison

2014 Ohio 482 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2014

Buck's work. {¶27} For purposes of determining whether the exception applies, our inquiry is whether maintenance of a pedestrian signal at an intersection qualifies as keeping "public roads in repair." { … may be asserted to establish nonliability: (3) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the action or failure to act by the employee involved that gave rise to the claim of liability

Davis v. Haas

2011 Ohio 5201 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2011

Haas’s answer asserted numerous defenses, including res judicata and qualified immunity. {¶ 4} On August 27, 2010, Davis filed a motion for summary judgment in which he claimed that Haas “attempted to kill” him … immunity.

Frazier v. City of Kent, 2006-P-0082 (10-26-2007)

2007 Ohio 5782 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2007

There is simply nothing in the record before us to establish such a claim. {¶ 47} Appellants' second issue is without merit. {¶ 48} In their third issue, appellants contend that the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not … R.C. 2744.02 (A)(1). * * * *Page 14 {¶ 52} "The second tier in an immunity analysis focuses on the exceptions to immunity located in R.C. 2744.02 (B). * * * {¶ 53} "Finally, in the third tier of the analysis, immunity may

Harris v. Hilderbrand

191 N.E.3d 1143 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 9, 2022

may be asserted to establish nonliability: *** (6) In addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section and in circumstances not covered by that division or sections … Without determining if that was proper, it was clearly not timely.