Case law

State v. Willett

2012 Ohio 2186 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 16, 2012

. {¶19} Here, Willett’s trial counsel failed to object to Trooper Wilson’s testimony at trial on the basis that the state failed to establish substantial compliance with testing standards. … Willett has not shown that the outcome of trial clearly would have been otherwise had Wilson’s testimony about the field sobriety test results been excluded.

J.S. v. A.S.

2024 Ohio 6015 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2024

Smith is clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case when comparing the representation of Wife and B.T. Unlike a GAL, B.T. is not a neutral party. … Wife failed to establish that she had obtained a separate interest in the property by a preponderance of the evidence. Husband, however, only established a separate 25 percent interest in the marital property.

State v. Collins

2011 Ohio 6365 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 2011

Dillworth that established Appellant’s failure to keep his appointment with her was misconduct. … the issue which is to be established before them.

In re R.D.

2022 Ohio 4519 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2022

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) establishes a two-part test for courts to apply when determining whether to grant a motion for permanent custody. … Mother clearly cares for her children and her children care for her.

Smith v. Greater Cleveland Reg. T. Auth., Unpublished Decision (5-24-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · May 24, 2001

To establish a claim brought under R.C. … Clearly, appellee was just reiterating the argument set forth by appellant. The words on his belief establish that this is the belief of the appellant, not a fact, and certainly not an admission on the part of appellee.

Prime Equip. Group, Inc. v. Schmidt

2016 Ohio 3472 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2016

Schmidt asserts that he cannot be personally held to account if his licensed and qualified counsel advised a course of action that was later deemed vexatious.1 {¶ 23} There is no authority in Ohio on the question … What may seem like sound strategy to counsel functioning with a limited view of the facts and history of the case may be quite clearly unreasonable to the client operating with full knowledge thereof.

Dist. 1199 v. State E.R.B., Unpublished Decision (6-30-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2003

There is no dispute in this matter that the grievance filed by Perkins qualified as a class grievance pursuant to Article 7.04 of the CBA. … Again, I believe the record clearly shows that the CBA provides that the mediator was qualified only to render an unofficial, nonbinding opinion. {¶ 59} According to SERB, "[a]bsent justification or excuse, a union's negligent

Cantlin v. Smythe Cramer Co.

2016 Ohio 3174 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 26, 2016

In addition, the HUD-1 clearly indicates whether a prospective class member has or has not paid the challenged “administrative fee.” … However, pursuant to the certified class definition, the seller in the Cantlin-Hong transaction would qualify as a class member because line 704 of her HUD-1 reflects that she paid an $189 “administrative fee.”

State v. Mosby

2024 Ohio 5210 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2024

Debatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Conway, 2006-Ohio-2815, ¶ 101. … To qualify for plain- error relief, Mosby must establish that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. State v. Morgan, 2017-Ohio-7565, ¶ 36.

State v. Shepard, Unpublished Decision (4-5-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2002

The Ohio Supreme Court has clearly indicated that the applicable standardized test procedures are set forth in the DWI Detection Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Student Manual (2000), published by the National Highway … Homan, supra, it is the State's burden to establish that those tests were performed in strict compliance with the manual.

State v. Hull, Unpublished Decision (4-26-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1999

The Ohio Constitution and Ohio Revised Code unequivocally establish that a "legally qualified voter" must be a United States citizen. … Clearly, R.C. 3599.12 does not violate the overbreadth doctrine. We find that R.C. 3599.12 withstands the test for vagueness.

State v. Jones

2016 Ohio 7413 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2016

COURT: You, you’re, if you want to get up here and qualify it and testify about it fine. JONES: I’m an expert with this application. … But you haven’t been qualified as one yet. JONES: * * * I’ve been using it for two years. * * * I’m an expert at using this application.

McCabe v. Janis, Unpublished Decision (5-18-2004)

2004 Ohio 2531 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 18, 2004

Polito was clearly not qualified as an expert regarding the subject matter of polar pack application. {¶ 46} While Dr. … Polito, as a licensed practicing podiatrist, may very well be an expert as to how a surgical site should be dressed to prevent infection and to generally facilitate the healing process, he was clearly not qualified as an

State v. Bailey

2015 Ohio 5483 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2015

the issue which is to be established before them. … We do not find the jury clearly lost its way or that a manifest miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Kramer v. Kramer

2019 Ohio 4865 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2019

law by selecting a de facto date of marriage termination that neither of the parties proposed, R.C. 3105.171 clearly provided notice to the parties that the trial court could select any date of termination supported by the … The trial court, following a vior dire of the witness, ruled that Todd was qualified as an expert residential real estate appraiser.

In re T.W.

2026 Ohio 124 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 2026

Referrals were made for Mother, and services were established for T.W., who was placed in a residential facility through the Board. … Mother concedes that she did not complete the case plan but qualifies her noncompliance, emphasizing that she did not believe T.W. was coming home to her.

State v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen Insurance Department

74 Ohio App. 263 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 1944

It is stated by the Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, “It is the conclusion of this Court that the exemption clause of §5414-11 GC of Ohio clearly establishes an exemption only where the defendant seeks to provide indemnity … The remedy, if any, is clearly with the Legislature. Judgment of the Court below affirmed. BARNES, P. J., and HORNBECK, J„ concur.

Toledo v. Silvernail, Unpublished Decision (10-21-2005)

2005 Ohio 5570 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2005

"`Privilege' means an immunity, license or right conferred by law, or bestowed by express or implied grant, or arising out of status, position, office or relationship, or growing out of necessity." … The fact that the children neither attempted to evict appellant from the house nor complain to the neighbors does not establish that the children permitted him to enter. {¶ 14} Therefore, we find that appellee did present

Sabo v. Sabo, Unpublished Decision (12-10-2003)

2003 Ohio 6586 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2003

(Citations omitted). {¶ 10} Despite the fact that Husband has clearly set forth adequate grounds for granting a divorce, Wife has argued that the trial court should have granted a legal separation. … The court stated: "The structure of this award (monthly and duration) considers the need for [Wife] to seek training or further education to fully establish her financial independence.

Morse Rd. Dev., L.L.C. v. Centerville

2025 Ohio 5066 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2025

In Lamar, this court recognized that zoning restrictions cannot be extended by implication to include things not clearly prescribed. … Under any reasonable definition, including the ones adopted by the trial court and the City Council, these businesses qualify as auto-oriented uses. 21  {¶ 45} Even