Case law

In re L.S.

125 N.E.3d 219 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2018

“Reversal is warranted only if the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different absent the error.” … The statute clearly delineates who is a victim and who is an offender. And as we determined in considering L.S.’s first assignment of error, L.S.

Gorsuch Homes, Inc. v. LeMasters

2016 Ohio 3211 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 31, 2016

possessory interest in the rental unit[,] * * * the landlord’s rights in limiting common ingress and egress ways to guests of -20- Case No. 10-15-18 the tenant must also be generally qualified … Id. {¶51} All it takes is a quick review of the notice of termination in this case to find that such notice was clearly insufficient.

Johnson v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Revision

2016 Ohio 7518 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2016

However, the reliability and intended use of some of the documents was not established. … This is a well-established principle of law. See, e.g., Valigore v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 105 Ohio St.3d 302, 2005-Ohio-1733, 825 N.E.2d 604, ¶ 5, quoting Smith v.

Harmon v. Adams, Unpublished Decision (5-1-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · May 1, 2002

As mentioned above, Appellee moved for summary judgment in the original action claiming that he was entitled to the immunities and defenses provided by R.C. 929.04 . … The extension of this complete defense to qualified entities is essentially a legislative determination that conduct falling within the purview of the statute, regardless of its frequency or intensity, is not a nuisance as

In re M.S.

2017 Ohio 6981 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2017

. {¶11} In considering whether the trial court’s decision is clearly and convincingly supported by the manifest weight of the evidence, we look at whether the record exhibits that “quantum of evidence that instills … in the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established.”

Wickline v. Alvis, Warden

103 Ohio App. 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1957

The rule is stated in 58 American Jurisprudence, 220, Witnesses, Section 375, as follows: “It is an established rule of the common law, adopted for the protection of the institution of marriage, that neither party to a marriage … Under these provisions, husband and wife are held to be competent witnesses for and against each other except as to the matters therein specified. * * *” Thus it will clearly appear that in civil cases the common-law rule

State v. Hodge

2022 Ohio 1780 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 27, 2022

“To establish self-defense, a defendant must introduce evidence showing that: (1) he was not at fault in creating the violent situation; (2) he had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm; and ( … Rather, Hodge testified clearly that he meant to block the pot when he raised his arm.

Planck v. Cinergy Power Generation, Unpublished Decision (12-15-2003)

2003 Ohio 6785 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2003

of a statutorily protected class; (2) was qualified for the position in question; and (3) despite being qualified, suffered an adverse employment decision under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination … Under these circumstances, we conclude that the evidence does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Planck was entitled to the preliminary injunction she sought.

Dispatch Printing Co. v. Recovery Ltd. Partnership

2015 Ohio 381 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2015

The federal court awarded 7.5 percent of the salvage rights to several insurance companies who established that their predecessors had insured certain portions of the gold on board the S.S. … July 16, 1998, consisting of gold coins and numismatic items (the 'Recovered Gold Collectibles')." (1998 Agreement, Section 1.) {¶ 45} Using the parties' definition of "Treasure" from Recital A, Recital C does not clearly

State v. Sealey

173 N.E.3d 894 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2021

Constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law The Reagan Tokes Law sets forth an indefinite sentencing scheme for certain qualifying first- and second-degree felonies committed on or after March 22, 2019. … “This refers to the principle that due process requires criminal statutes to be written clearly so that individuals are provided with a fair warning that a certain conduct is within the statute’s prohibition.”

State v. Bloodworth

2022 Ohio 1899 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2022

The testimony at trial established the following facts. {¶ 5} On September 23, 2019, Bloodworth and Hammett were cellmates in cell block D at LCI. … "Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise." State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426, 436 (1997).

Dinofrio v. Paquelet, Unpublished Decision (3-12-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2001

Further, the manual is clearly an instructional manual for the use and installation of the Russell-Taylor nail and although it may very well qualify as a learned treatise in a trial involving a Russell-Taylor nail, it does … not qualify for such sub judice.

State v. Spears

2023 Ohio 187 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2023

AS AMENDED BY THE REAGAN TOKES ACT, THE REVISED CODE’S SENTENCES FOR FIRST AND SECOND-DEGREE QUALIFYING FELONIES VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF OHIO.” {¶8} “II. … This is the scheme established by the Reagan Tokes Law. State v. Ferguson, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153, ¶ 23.

State v. Barefield

2025 Ohio 433 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2025

Barefield was clearly distraught. You can hear it in her voice. She was fed up.” (Emphasis added.) {¶38} Appellant did not object to the prosecutor’s statements at trial. … Since Appellant has not established plain error in his first through third assignments of error, he cannot establish ineffective assistance on the same grounds. {¶62} Accordingly, Appellant’s fourth assignment of

State v. Lewis

2022 Ohio 2357 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2022

They just need to provide some credible evidence to establish that probable cause exists. … The evidence presented at a probable cause hearing ‘“does not have to be unassailable’ to qualify as credible.”

Butler County Board of Commissioners v. City of Hamilton

145 Ohio App. 3d 454 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2001

In the course of such study, the County, in addition to having the advice of its own qualified personnel, retained qualified independent professional engineers to advise it and carefully studied the reports of such engineers … The provisions of the County Agreement establishing the price to be paid by the County to the City for water furnished pursuant to the County Agreement and providing for the adjustment of such price, and the provisions establishing

State v. Futo

2022 Ohio 1760 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 26, 2022

Even if the motion had been timely filed, none of the “evidence” cited by Futo qualifies as new or exculpatory. … In the motion, Futo claimed to have found increasingly more information, which clearly demonstrated that a child suffering from cerebral palsy had a high degree of suggestibility, such that someone could

In re R.M.

2013 Ohio 3588 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2013

Pinney stated that she tried to establish duties for appellant to follow each visit, but appellant stated “that she was not establishing even a duty.” {¶ 31} Pinney explained that during the supervised visitations … the issue which is to be established before them.

State v. Hurst, Unpublished Decision (3-7-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2000

Despite appellant's contentions, we cannot say that the jury clearly lost its way in convicting appellant. … An expert's testimony was required to establish that Julie was experiencing trauma and post-shock reactions due to her being raped.

State ex rel. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio

2014 Ohio 5245 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2014

Where the medical evidence establishes that a claimant's PTD is solely a result of the allowed conditions, the commission may grant PTD compensation on that basis alone. State ex rel. Hopkins v. Indus. … 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. Comm., 68 Ohio St.2d 165 (1981).