Case law

In re E.S.

2021 Ohio 4606 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2021

Therefore, the case properly qualifies as a mandatory bindover pursuant to R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b) and 2152.12(A)(1). See In re C.G., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97950, 2012-Ohio-5286, ¶ 30; Juv.R. 30. … The majority analysis runs counter to clearly established precedent. First, the state has no burden to disprove alternate theories of a case at a bindover proceeding.

Cleveland National Bank v. Burroughs Land Co.

10 Ohio App. 61 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 7, 1917

In this matter it clearly appears from the answer of The Cleveland National Bank and the affidavits of The San Antonio National Bank and of McGowan, that in order to determine the ownership of these bonds the relative personal … Furthermore, we view with some apprehension the establishment -of a rule that would permit a creditor to bring -an action in the courts of this state against -a resident -of this state, and attach bonds in the hands of a

State v. Maynard

132 Ohio App. 3d 820 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1999

The mere fact that more lenient punishment might also be justified by the same sentencing guidelines does not, by itself, establish an abuse of discretion.” (Citations omitted.) State v. … However, Maynard never objected to the police captain’s testimony on the grounds that he was not qualified as an expert in computers. Therefore, this argument will only be reviewed for plain error.

M & M Hotel Co. v. Nichols

21 Ohio Law. Abs. 66 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1935

Many statutes of other states qualify this language by the use of such terms as —“lawful possession”, or “the property of the guest”, or limit it to the property of the guest in which he has a good title. … Tire statute clearly covers such goods as they were, under the control of the guest.” In Gordon v Silber, 25 Q.

State v. Snider

2012 Ohio 2183 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 15, 2012

However, an appellate court may not merely substitute its view for that of the jury, but must find that “‘the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed … Under these exigent circumstances, the callers are not testifying as witnesses, and their statements do not qualify as testimonial in nature. {¶23} In the case at bar, Brianna’s telephone call also fits within the

State v. Thompson

2025 Ohio 4359 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2025

Griffith states no government employee is not qualified to sit on a jury. … the weapon, but it also may be established by circumstantial evidence.”

Committee to Elect Straus v. Ohio Elections Comm., 07ap-12 (10-11-2007)

2007 Ohio 5447 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 2007

There are no words used in the advertisements that make any attempt to qualify the statements made as opinions rather than fact. … However, the record establishes that seven months was not a sentence recommended by the prosecutor.

State v. Fudge

105 N.E.3d 766 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2018

They also ordered and ate a pizza at the establishment that evening. Williamson and appellant's mother left the Rumba Café between 11:30 and 11:45 p.m. … Further, "[p]lain error should not be invoked unless it can be said that, but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise."

State v. Lamonge

117 Ohio App. 143 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 1962

It seems to us that this cannot be established in this trial. Perhaps some declarations were admitted prior to establishment of a prima facie case, but it was certainly not very premature. … I purposely kept from moving; as long as he walked in I changed my mind. ’ ’ The foregoing clearly indicates that Lamonge had recently been questioned by the F. B. I. concerning a bombing in Niles.

In Re Richardson, Unpublished Decision (7-10-1998)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1998

Clearly, the issue here is the proper interpretation of the words "had employment" in R.C. 4141.01 (R). This is a matter of statutory construction which we undertake as a question of law. Miller v. Dept. of Indus. … The court reasoned that the purpose of the "work" requirement found in R.C. 4141.291 (A)(2) and other sections is to establish a set relationship between employer contributions to the system and remuneration paid to workers

Batteiger v. Deutsch, Ca021933 (3-28-2008)

2008 Ohio 1582 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2008

Clearly he was not. But, it was his deceased daughter, Sarah Ann Batteiger, who was the `insured' under the * * * USF G policy after applying the Scott-Pontzer analysis. … In other words, arguments raised by appellant in his summary judgment pleadings addressed the issue of liability, not the issue of the estate's damages. {¶ 34} It is well-established that a litigant's failure to raise an

Buroker v. Pratt Industries, Inc.

2020 Ohio 2845 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 7, 2020

Buroker's counsel clearly explained his rights to review the deposition, and he unambiguously waived that right." Id. at 6. … "Thus the party offering a witness as an expert has the burden of establishing that the witness is qualified to competently give such testimony." Beattie v. McCoy, 10th Dist. No.

State v. Marshall

2021 Ohio 4434 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2021

T.T.’s testimony did not establish a larger criminal scheme culminating in the rape of K.H. … As noted previously, K.H.’s testimony established what occurred and that along with the testimony of other witnesses established overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Adams v. Adams

2025 Ohio 5574 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2025

The magistrate found that the parties established a middle-class to upper-middle-class standard of living during the marriage. … Said Decision states clearly the Magistrate’s consideration of this long-term marriage, with spouses of vastly different earnings and earning capacities.

Peppas v. Hille, Unpublished Decision (5-14-2004)

2004 Ohio 2463 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 14, 2004

This determination alone is sufficient to support the trial court's denial of appellant's motion for relief from judgment. {¶ 15} Nonetheless, the trial court also determined that appellant had not established a meritorious … Thus, a court will give common words appearing in a written instrument their ordinary meaning, unless manifest absurdity results or unless some other meaning is clearly evidenced from the instrument. See Alexander v.

Aquatic Renovations Sys., Inc. v. Vill. of Walbridge

110 N.E.3d 877 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2018

Since the village denied the existence of a second contract, the village’s legislative authority argument does not qualify as an affirmative defense which the village had to raise in its answer. … Id. {¶ 42} While appellant claims it is clearly entitled to compensation pursuant to the holding in Wilson Bennett, a review of Ohio case law shows our case, Knox Elec. Constr., 14. Inc. v. Huron Cty.

State v. Buchanan

2018 Ohio 1086 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2018

Specifically, he contends that the record does not establish the criteria set forth in R.C. 2929.14(B)(2). … Buchanan qualified as a RVO under R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a): (a) If division (B)(2)(b) of this section does not apply, the court may impose on an offender, in addition to the longest prison term authorized or

State v. Dickens, 07ca009218 (9-2-2008)

2008 Ohio 4404 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 2008

Because no details of the detective's report are included the record, Dickens has failed to demonstrate that any of it qualifies as a "statement" under Crim. … . {¶ 31} Moreover, even if portions of the report qualified as prior statements under Crim.

In re Estate of Butler

32 Ohio Law. Abs. 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 1939

Freeman, produced none, at very clearly appears that the charge of Frederick W. … Considering the testimony of the administrator m its entirety, showing what he did do and what he failed to do, fraudulent conduct is established and the only thing that can relieve him of being surcharged would be the establishing

Mullen v. Hobbs

2012 Ohio 6098 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2012

Mullen testified that she had clearly explained to Hobbs that she did not want Hobbs to see or speak to her daughter. … The Fourth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s determination that this evidence established mental distress under prong (b).