Case law

Board of Trustees of The Tobacco Use Prevention & Control Foundation v. Boyce

185 Ohio App. 3d 707 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2009

.3d 353, 356 , 667 N.E.2d 1174 ; Ohio Congress at ¶ 20 (a legislative enactment “should not be declared unconstitutional ‘unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation and constitutional provision are clearly … Assuming arguendo that the board’s discussions about transferring funds to an outside entity qualified as related to “imminent court action,” the board’s specific discussions regarding the amount of funds to transfer and

State v. Storms

101 N.E.3d 14 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 2017

This subsection allows ODNR to establish a schedule to assign a minimum value for “any wild animal.” … The court must look to the statute itself to determine legislative intent, and, if such intent is clearly expressed, the statute may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or abridged, and significance

Butler v. TriHealth, Inc.

203 N.E.3d 751 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2022

Open and Obvious {¶15} To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached that duty, and (3) an injury proximately … Therefore, the fact that the depression within Butler’s parking space was concealed by her own car does not qualify as an attendant circumstance because the position of her parked car was not a circumstance created by the

Pytlinski v. Brocar Products, Inc., Unpublished Decision (8-18-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 2000

The core of the appellate court's holding in Painter is this: [Constitutional provisions dealing with free speech, equal protection, and privileges and immunities do not] articulate sufficient public policy to justify a cause … By imposing strict and detailed requirements on certain whistleblowers and restricting the statute's applicability to a narrow set of circumstances, the legislature clearly intended to encourage whistleblowing only to the

In Re Estate of Alexander

92 Ohio App. 3d 190 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1993

Alexander’s death reviewed by two qualified medical experts who practiced in the same medical specialty as Dr. Schreibman. One of the physicians who reviewed the case at Mr. Barragate’s request found that Mr. … Schreibman and his insurer clearly had an “interest” in the approved wrongful death settlement, viz., if the judgment entry were vacated pursuant to the Civ.R. 60(B) motion, Dr.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Maxfield

2016 Ohio 8102 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2016

The court of appeals held, The judgment entry clearly indicates that certain fees are not ascertainable at the time of the judgment entry. … as records of documents affecting an interest in property and statements in documents affecting an interest in property. {¶ 41} The only hearsay document referred to by Dickey was the payment history which he qualified

State v. Kilgore

2025 Ohio 593 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2025

Here, even though the firearm was never recovered, the evidence provided by the State, if believed, sufficiently established Mr. … In determining whether recanted testimony qualifies as newly discovered evidence, this Court has consistently applied the well-settled test set forth in Brown at ¶ 20, which provides: If the newly

State v. Marshall, Unpublished Decision (11-16-2007)

2007 Ohio 6298 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2007

Further, he was eminently qualified to testify due to his specialized knowledge, experience, training, and education. … It is our view that the factual foundations for their opinions were sufficiently established.

State v. Crossen

2011 Ohio 2509 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 24, 2011

Nothing in the record establishes that appellant could not have continued to walk away from Officer Evans as he had done the first two times the Officer hailed him. … On the facts of this case, clearly a “seizure" of the appellant occurred. {¶17} Upon review, under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the events in the case sub judice constituted an arrest such that

Randolph v. McCullough, Unpublished Decision (9-21-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2000

In the present case, the stipulated QDRO stated at paragraph 13 that, "This Court shall retain jurisdiction to amend this Order only for purposes of establishing and maintaining its qualifications as a Qualified Domestic … The latter clearly gives Appellee a share of the benefits accumulated during the marriage (none), while the former clearly gives Appellee a proportional share of Appellant's vested benefits attributable to a number of years

Swift v. Allied Pest Control, Unpublished Decision (8-31-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2001

In fact, neither special education nor certification are required to qualify a witness as an expert. State v. Baston (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 418 , 423 . Both Dr. Boyles and Dr. … Clearly, both elements (A) and (B) were met by both doctors. Allied focuses its argument on Evid.R. 702(C). In this regard, Allied alleges that Dr.

State v. McFeeture

2014 Ohio 5271 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2014

They were clearly not testimonial, and fell under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. … That does not mean that he was not qualified as an expert. On this record, we find that Dr.

State Ex Rel Wehrung v. Dinkelacker, Unpublished Decision (10-13-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2000

I believe that the statutes are clearly substantive. … This jurisdiction confers special rights and immunities. He is, as specified by the statute, shielded from publicity. He may be confined, but with rare exceptions he may not be jailed along with adults.

Cooke v. United Dairy Farmers, Inc., Unpublished Decision (3-31-2005)

2005 Ohio 1539 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2005

Thus, these statements were also clearly opinion. {¶ 24} In addition, the statements are not verifiable. … However, Cooke I did not ultimately establish that any conduct of any of the defendant parties did, in fact, constitute defamation.

State v. Washington

2022 Ohio 1426 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2022

The State’s evidence at trial established the following facts. … The Defendant failed to establish “good cause” to substitute counsel.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Thompson

2014 Ohio 2300 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 30, 2014

The person in possession of a note indorsed in blank “qualifies as a holder of the note.” Id., citing R.C. 1301.201(B)(21)(a). And the holder is entitled to enforce the note. … Moreover, the deadline for responses established in the trial court’s February 15, 2013 order had long passed. Thompson had a reasonable time after the bankruptcy dismissal to file any additional response.

State v. Norman, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2005)

2005 Ohio 6018 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2005

issue which is to be established before them. … There is no evidence as to who told him the scar would not go away or that the person was qualified to make such a determination.

Chaney v. Coulter

35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 481 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 15, 1918

to find courts laying down as a rule of law that “fraud must in all cases be clearly proved,” but we can not subscribe to the correctness of such rule in the face of the established rule by the Supreme Court of this state … Rep. 562 ] and says: “It can never be improper to call the attention of the jury to the character of the issue, and to remind them that more evidence should be required to establish grave charges than to establish trifling

Penn v. A-Best Prods. Co., 07ap-404 (12-31-2007)

2007 Ohio 7145 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2007

Also, although a doctor who did not otherwise qualify as "competent medical authority" might diagnose a plaintiff as suffering from an asbestos-related injury, there would still exist the issue of whether the opinion of the … While the General Assembly may well have intended all asbestos-related cancer claims to be subject to the new legislation, that intent is not clearly expressed in the statute.

Abruzzino v. Brown

2025 Ohio 438 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2025

This process was followed, here, as Columbiana County Common Pleas Court is clearly the appropriate forum for the state’s complaint. … While the court must review all of the individual filings, it clearly may consider the “overarching legal arguments” in those cases. Prime Equip.