Case law

State v. Young, Unpublished Decision (11-21-2005)

2005 Ohio 6162 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2005

Dick Kilburn testified that the test was positive. {¶ 22} Appellant, however, argues that "there is clearly a legitimate question as to whether the State established a probation violation" based upon the following conflicting … We therefore find that the evidence presented at the hearing established that appellant violated his probation.

Passage v. Passage

2016 Ohio 1097 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2016

In a post-amendment case involving an agreed judgment entry, the Fifth District Court of Appeals held that a trial court had jurisdiction to modify a qualified domestic relations order post-decree, because the parties had … Instead, courts “rely on the language the General Assembly chose and * * * long-established rules of statutory construction.” Id.

Directv, Inc. v. Levin

181 Ohio App. 3d 92 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2009

Those cases came much closer to the clearly prohibited barrier to interstate commerce that amounted to a tariff, which is clearly prohibited by the Commerce Clause. W. … At best, the plaintiffs have persuasively, but ultimately to no end, established that they are more burdened by Ohio’s tax provision than comparable interstate cable providers.

Stanfield v. Attica

2022 Ohio 747 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2022

On January 28, 2010, Attica established a flat-fee water and sewer rate structure via Ordinance number 2009-50. … “‘[I]f such intent is clearly expressed therein, the statute may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or abridged.’” Osborne at ¶ 20, citing State ex rel. McGraw v.

Louden v. Louden

2026 Ohio 2015 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 29, 2026

We incorporate the abuse of discretion standard established above. … Clearly Husband did not come to trial prepared to present evidence as to the value of the cryptocurrency.

Galehouse v. Geiser, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2006)

2006 Ohio 766 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2006

No. 20705, 2002-Ohio-1644 , at ¶ 14. {¶ 11} The elements of an adverse possession claim are well established in Ohio. … In other words, "a particular litigation expense will not qualify as part of `costs' unless it is `fixed and taxable according to statute.'"

State v. Partridge, Unpublished Decision (11-14-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2001

In this case, as in Moore , neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel offered or sought to offer testimony from a qualified expert concerning Partridge's likelihood to commit future sexually-oriented offenses. … We sustain Partridge's fourth assignment of error, following the precedent established in Moore , because we cannot say that the evidence presented at the classification hearing weighed, as required by statute, clearly and

Doubler v. Doubler

2023 Ohio 393 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2023

to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established … Additionally, while the trial court did issue a temporary order for child support, the final judgment entry clearly states that the new child support order is effective October 22, 2020, and did not contain any retroactive

Erie Ins. Exchange v. Lansberry, 07 Co 6 (3-10-2008)

2008 Ohio 1553 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2008

public policy and an exclusion in the contract and 2) Appellants were acting in the course and scope of their employment when they were injured and, therefore, the claim falls within a policy exclusion and Appellants do not qualify … Furthermore, the complaint clearly alleges that the destruction of the camera was "intentional and malicious."

State v. Bowers, 06ca7 (5-23-2007)

2007 Ohio 3986 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 23, 2007

(1964), 176 Ohio St. 460 , 200 N.E.2d 467 , at the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court wrote: "In a criminal case, where a claim of a witness that he can not be compelled to testify as a witness because of the privilege of immunity … However, we find nothing in the record to establish a date for these incidents.

State v. Huffman

2026 Ohio 1618 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 4, 2026

the entire record, weigh the evidence and all of the reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the factfinder ‘clearly … Marquis, as a lay witness was not qualified as a handwriting expert.

State v. Davis

2013 Ohio 5226 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 2013

Aggravated robbery, therefore, qualifies as a predicate offense for felony murder.  4 {¶11} A person need not be the principal offender to be convicted of a crime … As Davis has not establish prejudice, his claim of ineffective assistance must fail. Davis’ fourth assignment of error is overruled.

Banks v. Incineration, Unpublished Decision (12-15-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1999

It is well established that, because an employer's intentional tortious conduct does not arise out of employment, the Ohio Workers' Compensation system does not bestow upon employers immunity from civil liability for their … Moreover, "to establish an intentional tort of an employer, proof beyond that required to prove negligence and beyond that to prove recklessness must be established." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.

State v. Mobarak

98 N.E.3d 1023 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2017

The challenger bears the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional. State v. … witness' testimony either relates to matters beyond the knowledge or experience possessed by lay persons or dispels a misconception common among lay persons; (B) The witness is qualified

In re S.J.

2023 Ohio 3441 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2023

Rather, S.J.’s conduct clearly indicated that it was her intent to record the arrest of the suspect. … officers had established control over S.J.

State v. Tibbs, 89723 (3-20-2008)

2008 Ohio 1258 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2008

Testimony as to the actual number observed on the food stamp card does not qualify as an oral or written assertion. Thus, it is not a "statement" as required by Evid.R. 801(C). … The testimony established that the two officers observed Tibbs engage in a hand-to-hand transaction with a man on a bicycle.

Green v. Westfield Natl. Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (9-29-2006)

2006 Ohio 5057 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2006

Therefore, under the Westfield policy, the vehicle that was involved in the crash did not qualify as an uninsured vehicle because it was owned by Appellant's husband. … Such an interpretation is in direct conflict with the legislative intent clearly evidenced by Senate Bill 97.

State v. Sexton

2025 Ohio 718 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2025

Sexton argues that the weight of the evidence presented at trial established that he acted in self-defense when he wielded a landscaping machete against his neighbor. … the driver’s side door of the truck further corroborated that the dog was in the truck and the collar came off when Sexton forcefully attempted to remove the wayward animal. {¶33} While a pocketknife undoubtedly qualifies

Friedman v. Bexley Pub. Library

2025 Ohio 1799 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 20, 2025

Title II of the ADA provides that “[s]ubject to the provisions of this title, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the … The trial court’s failure to determine the amount of attorney fees clearly contravenes R.C. 2323.51(B)(2)(c), which requires the trial court to both conduct a hearing on a motion for sanctions and, where appropriate, “determine

Bosak v. Kalmer, Unpublished Decision (6-27-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2002

Clearly, this information is verifiable under Vail 's second factor as all anyone needs to do is call Prizant's and ask Prizant's if they know Bosak is unethical. … As for the Kalmers' third argument, we note the Kalmers never raised the issue of qualified privilege before the trial court.