Case law

State v. Clipps

2019 Ohio 3569 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2019

This is not the exceptional case in which the jury clearly lost its way or that the evidence weighs heavily against appellant’s convictions. … Under the plain language in R.C. 2971.01(H)(1) as it existed at the time of Frierson’s offenses, he was not eligible for the enhanced, indefinite sentencing under R.C. 2971.03 because he did not qualify as a sexually

State v. Phillips, 90124 (8-28-2008)

2008 Ohio 4367 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2008

. {¶ 60} We find the state adequately established Lewis' competency as an expert. Evid. R. 104(A) grants the trial court the authority to determine whether an individual qualifies as an expert. … R. 702 provides the requirements for an expert to qualify to testify. *Page 18 Evid.

Campo v. Daniel, Unpublished Decision (12-26-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2002

On its face, Lois Campo's consortium claim would not qualify as a compensable claim under the motorcycle policy because it does not involve "bodily injury, sickness, or disease." … The limitation on damages provision is so clearly related to that subject that we feel no further discussion on that point is necessary.

State v. Cornerstone Foundation Systems, 07ap-684 (5-22-2008)

2008 Ohio 2455 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 22, 2008

Specifically, relator alleges that the notes from the BWC representative clearly establish that his supervisor knew that he had restrictions and that he was terminated later than May 16, 2005, as the employer asserted. {¶ … While the statement clearly indicates that the employer was aware that relator had hurt his knee and had resulting discomfort which somewhat impaired his abilities, the statement does not establish that a written agreement

Lennox Industries, Inc. v. Ohio Crc, Unpublished Decision (12-28-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 1999

In order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, the employee must demonstrate (1) that he or she was a member of the statutorily-protected class, (2) that he or she was discharged, (3) that he or she was qualified … Appellee clearly set forth a prima facie case of age discrimination.

Westbrook Technologies v. City Blue Ptg., Unpublished Decision (10-4-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 2001

In response, City Blue presented testimonial and documentary evidence that contradicted that fact and otherwise qualified the discovery response. … Accordingly, we cannot say that the court clearly lost its way in resolving this factual conflict in favor of City Blue.

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. 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.

In re P.A.

2026 Ohio 660 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2026

(affirming juvenile court’s denial of request to make SIJ findings based on interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J) that parties did qualify as a matter of law) and In re A.M.A., 2023- … (reversing juvenile court’s sua sponte decision to “vacate[] its prior orders” with SIJ findings “without a hearing and notice” because it “clearly violate[d] the procedural due process

State v. Waggle

2021 Ohio 3549 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2021

raises four assignments of error for our consideration as follow: I {¶ 8} "AS AMENDED BY THE REAGAN TOKES ACT, THE REVISED CODE'S SENTENCES FOR FIRST AND SECOND DEGREE QUALIFYING … CT2020-55 13 cannot say that we clearly and convincingly find that the trial court's order for consecutive service was not supported by the R.C. 2929.14(C) factors

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.

Reinoehl v. Trinity Universal Insurance

130 Ohio App. 3d 186 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1998

Appellant claims that the evidence presented at the trial established that Ward was liable as a matter of law. … Appellant argues that the trial court’s decision granted “absolute immunity for Trinity Universal’s agents malicious testimony about the alleged crime in the grand jury causing it to return an indictment.”

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. Rogers

2013 Ohio 3235 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2013

Clearly, the prospect of being subjected to multiple punishments for offenses that may be allied affects a defendant’s substantial rights. … Judicial economy is clearly lacking in this area, and it is this court’s duty to provide some guidance to the trial courts.

Lozier v. Lewis

30 Ohio C.C. Dec. 300 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 1918

He accepted the trust, qualified as trustee and took upon himself the performance of the duties imposed by the relation. … Both trustees qualified, but before suit was brought the one resident in Philadelphia resigned and thenceforward the trust was executed by the Massachusetts trustee alone.

State v. Colston

2020 Ohio 3879 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2020

Put differently, to qualify for protection under the Fifth Amendment, a statement or other communication must be: (1) testimonial; (2) incriminating; and (3) compelled. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. … While R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) clearly applies to consecutive- sentencing review, R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 both clearly apply only to individual sentences. 2019-Ohio-4761, ¶¶16-17(emphasis in original).

Gaynier v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co.

101 Ohio App. 324 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 28, 1956

May I qualify that in this respect: I didn’t discover the leak; we discovered phases of the leak. The fact that it would not hold pressure was a clear indication of a leak, but we did not discover the leak. “Q. … No, sir, the gas company’s test, which I had seen several, all indicated clearly that *328 there was a rupture somewheres in there; that pressure would not maintain. In fact they could not even build up a pressure. “Q.

State v. Ellerbe

2026 Ohio 170 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 2026

Testimony further established Ellerbe was armed, and continued shooting towards the Airbnb as he and his coconspirators fled the party. … Further testimony established that the shots fired inside the home were shot into the hallway toward the back bedroom, not the reverse.

State v. Duque, Unpublished Decision (8-15-2005)

2005 Ohio 4187 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2005

that Ohio has adopted the two prong test established in Strickland v. … In contrast, when reviewing whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether "the jury clearly

Fisher v. United Ohio Ins. Co.

2025 Ohio 812 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2025

We look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used in the policy unless another meaning is clearly apparent from the contents of the policy. … In other words, the only persons who qualify as an “insured” under Section B.2.a. are those “occupying” a covered “auto.”