Case law

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.”

State v. Woodfork

2025 Ohio 2786 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 2025

This determination by the trial court was not clearly erroneous. … Importantly, the trial court did not qualify the threats at issue herein as “words alone.”

Gateways to Better Living, Inc. v. Creasy

16 Ohio App. 3d 259 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 17, 1984

Plaintiff’s homes are among approximately six hundred seventy-three intermediate care facilities that were established in the early 1970’s in response to a policy decision to move some mentally retarded patients out of state … The course was taught by plaintiffs director of health services, who is a registered nurse and a “qualified mental and retardational professional.”

State v. Hurst, Unpublished Decision (3-7-2000)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

Cooper v. Data, Unpublished Decision (11-22-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1999

In order to qualify for relief under subsections (2) and (3), the motion must be made "not more than one year after the judgment." … Clearly the request for relief under subsections (2), newly discovered evidence, and subsection (3), fraud, are untimely.

State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (12-13-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1999

However, Patrolman Sloane clearly indicates in his testimony at trial that he did not know for a fact that the weapon used was a pellet gun. … As to the contention that appellant should have objected during the course of the cross examination of appellant, it is clear that this conduct similarly fails to qualify as ineffective assistance of counsel.

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. 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

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

Turnmire v. Turnmire

200 N.E.3d 604 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2022

However, as movant for summary judgment Marsha needed to first affirmatively establish the absence of fraudulent misconduct before Martha receives a reciprocal burden to present evidence establishing the fraudulent misconduct … Clearly a design to deprive her of the right for protection of her alimony support. Metropolitan Life Insurance v.

State v. McNair

2015 Ohio 2980 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2015

must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly … Consequently, we conclude that the remaining evidence established Mr. McNair’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Harris at ¶ 37.

In re A.H.

2025 Ohio 2758 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2025

While in CSB’s temporary custody, A.H. resided in therapeutic foster homes and, later, at Ohio Guidestone, a qualified residential treatment program. {¶24} A.H. requires long-term services to address certain … Father B. is not a permanency option due to his incarceration and lack of an established relationship with the child.

State v. Boykin

2012 Ohio 1090 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2012

He’s a qualified lawyer just like [your former lawyer] was. … Boykin contends that he clearly asked to represent himself during trial and that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his request.

State v. Marksch

2026 Ohio 2347 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2026

The State’s motion was clearly timely and alluded to the need for complete information and the government’s interest as the meritorious defense and grounds for relief. {¶ 7} Marksch filed a combination motion to … After a hearing, the trial court found the State established a meritorious defense based on the statutorily required findings for sealing or expunging records.

State v. Kennedy

224 N.E.3d 70 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2023

Judge Horton ordered the prison terms for case Nos. 14CR-514 and 14CR-834 to run consecutively to case No. 14CR-769 and stated his intention to establish “total prison time is fifteen (15) years.” (Emphasis omitted.) … However, that sentencing entry does not clearly or unambiguously set forth the sequence the consecutive sentences are to be served.

Brown v. Dover Corp., C-060123 (5-4-2007)

2007 Ohio 2128 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 4, 2007

The record clearly demonstrates that Brown received both the gloves and the overalls the same day that the "benefits" had initially been denied. {¶ 31} Brown's allegation that excess overtime hours were disparately allocated … VI Summary Judgment Proper {¶ 47} Brown failed to establish a prima facie case of race-based discrimination.

Green v. Green, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2005)

2005 Ohio 851 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 2005

Therefore, because the division of marital property, including pension benefits, is clearly an ancillary issue in a divorce proceeding, the judgment of the trial court is final and appealable so long as it affects a "substantial … No. 1-99-79. {¶ 9} However, it is well-established that a judgment apportioning pension benefits between ex-spouses is not a final appealable order until such time as a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") or DOPO

Chiro v. Foley

2014 Ohio 3728 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2014

On February 9, 2011, Foley filed a motion to establish spousal support, alleging that Chiro constructively terminated her employment by creating a hostile work environment. … It is “a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against reason and evidence.” (Citations and quotations omitted.) State v.

Cleveland Botanical Garden v. Drewien

153 N.E.3d 700 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 2020

Additionally, conditions subsequent are not favored in law and are looked upon with disfavor in equity; conditions subsequent must be clearly expressed and strictly construed. Second Church of Christ, Scientist v. … This privilege “provides a qualified privilege protecting the attorney’s mental processes in preparation of litigation, establishing ‘a zone of privacy in which lawyers can analyze and prepare their client’s case free from

Bolender v. Bolender

2014 Ohio 2136 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 15, 2014

professional degree of the other party; (k) The time and expense necessary for the spouse who is seeking spousal support to acquire education, training, or job experience so that the spouse will be qualified … R.C. 3105.18(F)(1)(a)-(b). {¶ 32} In adopting the magistrate’s denial of appellant’s motion to modify/terminate the temporary support order, the trial court noted that while “both parties clearly received an equal