Case law

Roe v. Heap, Unpublished Decision (5-11-2004)

2004 Ohio 2504 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 11, 2004

In other words, the trial court found that the e-mail messages were protected by a qualified privilege. … (Indeed, the trial court specifically states that a qualified privilege protects appellees' communications.) {¶ 62} The defense of qualified privilege was set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Hahn v.

Cafaro Mgt. Co. v. Polta

2012 Ohio 4558 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2012

That reason does not qualify as just cause for termination. {¶26} Appellate courts have stated that “absenteeism * * * caused by a bona fide illness or injury is not just cause for termination of an employee.” … The decision clearly states that Polta provided a physician statement stating she was able to physically return to work. Polta’s submission of the physician note provided evidence of the ability to work.

State v. Parks, Unpublished Decision (8-2-2004)

2004 Ohio 4023 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2004

To establish that appellant had endangered Katrina, the state was also required to show that appellant engaged in an affirmative act of abuse. … Over defendant's motion, the trial court qualified Dr.

State v. Harris

227 N.E.3d 510 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 2023

Accordingly, the state established that Mr. … (See Brief of Cross-Appellant at 38-40.) {¶ 107} Generally, “[t]he extent and scope of cross-examination clearly fall within the ambit of trial strategy, and debatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance

Combs v. Baker, Unpublished Decision (12-3-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 2001

As a passenger in a car that strayed from the roadway onto appellees' property, he was clearly not there by invitation, permission, or acquiescence of appellees. … In contrast, a "qualified" nuisance is premised upon negligence.

Strasel v. Seven Hills OB-GYN Associates, Inc.

170 Ohio App. 3d 98 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 2007

Strasel clearly appreciated the risk to her baby, and as a result of her recognition of the peril, she suffered psychological injuries that were compensable under Paugh. … Marmion, Strasel’s treating physician, because Strasel did not establish that Dr. Marmion had devoted at least one half of his professional time to a qualifying activity pursuant to Evid.R. 601(D). Evid.

In re H.C.

2013 Ohio 5871 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2013

(b) The child has been in an agency's custody for two years or longer, and no longer qualifies for temporary custody pursuant to division (D) of section 2151.415 of the Revised Code. … Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.

McGrew v. Popham, Unpublished Decision (2-1-2007)

2007 Ohio 428 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2007

Clear and convincing evidence is sufficient to establish "* * * in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established." Cross v. … This evidence did not qualify as a hearsay exception pursuant to Evid.R. 804(5), `statement by a deceased', since the decedent's estate is not a party to this action."

State v. Cantrill

2020 Ohio 1235 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2020

Indeed, the record clearly demonstrates that the prosecutor, especially, made a sincere effort to treat Cantrill with dignity, and clearly conveyed this sentiment to the jury. … There is no stipulated exhibit of record, establishing the disability element.

State v. Sandifur

2024 Ohio 2414 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2024

However, she qualified her testimony by saying that she did not think she was close enough to smell alcohol, she “mostly talked to” the woman, and she could not “see well [because] we have a lattice fence and you can’t … the witnesses, and determine whether the jury clearly lost its way in resolving evidentiary conflicts so as to create such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

State v. Mays

2012 Ohio 838 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 2012

This limitation “precludes certain particularly dangerous felonies–the archetype is assault with a deadly weapon–from qualifying [as the underlying felony].” Id. … First, the reviewing court must determine “whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” Kalish at ¶ 4. Here we conclude that the imposition of consecutive sentences is not unlawful.

In Matter of Salaben, 2008-A-0037 (12-31-2008)

2008 Ohio 6989 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2008

Salaben's counsel failed to establish a proper foundation for Ms. Bechtel's observations and opinions regarding Christopher's hygiene, Mr. … Salaben's testimony clearly demonstrates what the Court originally found, he is not suitable to be [Christopher's] Guardian of the Person.

State v. Cook, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2005)

2005 Ohio 1550 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2005

The state failed to establish probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol. {¶ 8} "A. … The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that "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.

R. K. O. Radio Pictures, Inc. v. Department of Education

71 Ohio Law. Abs. 246 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 1955

The constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and press prevents a state from establishing censorship over motion pictures. … In order to sanction a system of censorship I would have to say that ‘no law’ does not mean what it says, that ‘no law’ is qualified to mean ‘some’ laws. I cannot take that step.

State v. Jackson

2015 Ohio 5246 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2015

That way you can establish whether something is or is not significantly significant at a certain level. In Dr. … Miller at 613. {¶63} The trial court determined that Tabor’s testimony was based on established scientific principles.

Owusu v. Hope Cancer Ctr. of Northwest Ohio, Inc.

2011 Ohio 4466 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 2011

We find that the facts before the trial court clearly established that: -15- Case No. 1-10-81 (1) HCC had a legitimate business interest to protect, and the covenant was reasonably … The Bonus Addendum clearly states that a “Minimum Bonus of $50,000.00 will be guaranteed for years 1 and 2 of employment.” (Emphasis added.)

Woods v. Department of Rehabilitation, Unpublished Decision (1-30-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2001

Seasons' testimony concerning the medical record of appellant clearly indicates that he was receiving medical treatment, while in the custody of appellee, well beyond the end of 1994. … Section 41 , Article II , Ohio Constitution, gives the ODRC the discretion in how best to allocate its limited resources in order to employ as many qualified prisoners as possible.

Coldren v. Northview Shopping Plaza, L.L.C.

214 N.E.3d 1243 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 22, 2023

distinction [regarding the open-and- obvious doctrine] nor [have they] provided any authority to show what deceptive means, how it is to be assessed or how this common curb could somehow meet that that [sic] standard and qualify … Critically, those photographs clearly depict the variation of the height of the curb from the parking lot. {¶27} Notwithstanding the observability of the curb, the Coldrens contend that it is not an open and obvious

State v. Stewart, Unpublished Decision (6-23-2006)

2006 Ohio 3216 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2006

Thus, pursuant to R.C. 4506.01 (D)(1) and (2), the truck and trailer that appellant was driving on the day at issue qualified as commercial motor vehicles. … Appellant alleges that his operation of the dump truck and trailer qualified as an exemption to the commercial driver's license requirement.

State v. Page

117 N.E.3d 874 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2018

Since the map admitted into evidence clearly shows the transaction site was within the 1,000-foot boundary of the school, the real issue presented is not sufficiency. … by some ‘other qualified witness.’” State v. Beasley, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-493, ¶ 185, quoting State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 2008-Ohio-2, 880 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 170.