Case law

Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Co. v. West

33 Ohio Law. Abs. 522 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1941

We analyze the section as follows: first, we start with the well-established theory that the registration of motor vehicles is an excise tax. A definition of an excise tax will be found in 101 Oh St p. 132. … The Legislature is speaking of such rights, privileges, etc., as would constitute property, and very clearly states that after the consolidation the same shall be fully and effectually the property of the consolidated corporation

State v. Klein

2013 Ohio 3514 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2013

that the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different but for the alleged error.” … Klein has not established that, but for the alleged error of qualifying Officer Gilbert as an expert, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different. See Veal at ¶ 18.

Hall v. Columbus Bd. of Edn.

32 Ohio App. 2d 297 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 2, 1972

Plaintiffs argue that sovereign immunity is not a defense in this case, but if sovereign immunity is a defense it may only be asserted by the defendant Columbus Board of Education and is not a defense available to defendants … Boards of education are public agencies of the state established for the sole purpose of administering the state system of public education, and in the performance of their authorized duties or functions they take on a purely

Yurkowski v. Univ. of Cincinnati

2017 Ohio 7681 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2017

(Immunity Decision at 6.) Appellants did not attempt to appeal from the immunity decision and did not assert immunity as error in their two subsequent appeals to this court. … appeals weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses, and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly

Needham v. Columbus

2014 Ohio 1457 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2014

subdivisions; (b) The design, construction, reconstruction, renovation, repair, maintenance, and operation of a public cemetery other than a township cemetery; (c) The establishment … Appellant's complaint clearly frames the city's function here as one of maintenance and repair of the sidewalk.

Roberts v. RMB Enterprises, Inc.

197 Ohio App. 3d 435 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2011

In order to determine the legislature’s intent, the court must look to the statute itself, and “if such intent is clearly expressed therein, the statute may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or … trial court erred by finding he was not “entitled to immunity under the fellow servant rule.”

Colley v. Crabtree

235 N.E.3d 562 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2024

Chapter 2744 establishes a three-step analysis to determine whether a political subdivision is immune from liability.” Student Doe v. Adkins, 2021-Ohio-3389, 178 N.E.3d 947, ¶ 22 (4th Dist.), citing Cramer v. … Clearly, based on the facts of this case, exceptions one through four do not remove Scioto County’s immunity. {¶97} Colley maintains R.C. 2923.01 removes Scioto County’s immunity pursuant R.C. 2744.02(B)(5).

DeMartino v. Poland Local School Dist.

2011 Ohio 1466 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 2011

Appellee clearly states he is a student, and was participating in that capacity in his high school marching band. … Because the trial court did not fully consider this issue, which, if established, would dissolve immunity, we must remand to the trial court for further proceedings.” Id., ¶25.

State v. Cumberworth

69 Ohio App. 239 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1942

This testimony clearly substantiates the contention of the state that the defendant knew that his sodomous acts were wrong. … justified in finding that such affirmative defense was not established by the preponderance of evidence.

Toros v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Dev. Disabilities

2013 Ohio 4601 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2013

Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215, 2003-Ohio-3319, 790 N.E.2d 781, ¶ 9. {¶23} The estate does not dispute that the CBDD qualifies as a “political subdivision” under R.C. 2744.01(F) and that the operation of facilities … However, merely because a party concedes an issue does not mean that courts must accept a clearly wrong concession.

State, Ex Rel. a Juvenile v. Hoose

43 Ohio App. 3d 109 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 1988

Petitioner then filed a motion with the court requesting that the court select an ap *110 propriately qualified professional, not presently employed by the court, to undertake a private psychiatric eváluation at the state … Since this clearly is not a phase where petitioner’s life or liberty is expressly at stake, it cannot be concluded that the juvenile here is constitutionally entitled to the appointment of a private psychiatric examiner:

Miller v. State

147 Ohio App. 3d 360 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 4, 2001

waiver of immunity. … There is clearly no dispute that under certain circumstances, an action can be maintained in the court of common pleas against an employee or officer of the state.

Rodgers v. Derue

75 Ohio App. 3d 200 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1991

The trial court granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity. … The facts sub judice are clearly distinguishable from those in Reynolds . Unlike the officer in Reynolds , Officer Ferrell was experienced and trained.

Freedom Mtge. Corp. v. Vitale

2014 Ohio 1549 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2014

Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2013 AP 08 0037 5 Appellants are immune from personal liability on the note due to their bankruptcy discharge. {¶8} Appellants appeal the … Schwartzwald requires a plaintiff establish an interest in the note or mortgage at the time it filed suit.

Porter v. Probst

2014 Ohio 3789 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2014

As mentioned above, sovereign immunity bars a promissory estoppel argument. … In order to establish a procedural due process violation, it must be shown that the conduct complained of deprived plaintiff of a liberty or property interest without adequate procedural safeguards. Roe v.

Mauldin v. Youngstown Water Dept.

2019 Ohio 5065 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2019

test rather than the employee immunity test). … The trial court’s judgment entry clearly rendered judgment solely on statute of limitations grounds. An issue is moot if it is “no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”

Callaway v. The Akron Police Dept.

183 N.E.3d 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2021

Callaway could not rely on it to establish an exception to Officer Orrand’s immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c). {¶19} In reaching the foregoing conclusion, this Court is mindful that the Eleventh District has … Callaway to establish an exception to his immunity. See id. {¶34} Ms. Callaway testified by deposition. It was her testimony that she lived alone and got home a few minutes before this incident occurred.

Powlette v. Carlson

197 N.E.3d 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 2022

Chapter 2744, he was immune from liability. … the plaintiff’s ability to establish the elements of his or her claim.”

State v. Blackford

2013 Ohio 1632 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2013

It appears appellant is arguing he has some sort of qualified immunity to obtain a visitor's pass. {¶29} State's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 were warning letters to Mr. … Dubose, 117 Ohio App.3d 219, 222 (7th Dist. 1997), we concur with our brethren when they concluded, "[t]he prosecution established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant-appellant, without any privilege to do so,

Siegel v. Univ. of Cincinnati College of Medicine

2015 Ohio 441 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2015

Regardless of the legal theories under which appellants seek to establish actionable liability for the alleged conduct, it was incumbent on them to first establish that the immunity afforded under R.C. 9.86 did not apply … As we further discussed in Young: Under this standard of review, the appellate court weighs the evidence in order to determine whether the trier of fact "clearly lost its way and