Case law

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.”

State v. Eaton

192 N.E.3d 1236 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2022

what respects he falls short of qualifying for parole; this affords the process that is due under these circumstances. The Constitution does not require more.” … R.C. 2967.271 clearly satisfies this requirement; indeed, it provides more process than is required.

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

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).

State v. Graham, Unpublished Decision (11-30-1998)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 1998

We find the above arguments, contained in appellant's second assignment of error, do not establish actual prejudice. … Clearly, this evidence established appellant's participation in the murder of Ms. Peters.

Marra v. Auburn Twp. Zoning Inspector

2020 Ohio 6678 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2020

Marra remains in the home does not qualify as “single- family dwelling” use. … Marra has not established that the BZA considered the hearsay evidence arbitrarily, such that the lower court erred in also relying upon it.

State v. Sheline

2019 Ohio 528 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2019

This court concluded, “[t]o qualify as an exception, the procedure must (1) be justified, on a case-specific finding, based on important state interests, public policies, or necessities of the case and … We do not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings.

State v. Pettis

236 N.E.3d 428 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2024

At those hearings, the following facts were established. … Second, he argues that even if posted and emailed notice is sufficient in general, this particular notice did not clearly communicate that an offender’s motion has to be made prior to their release.

Miller v. Cloud

2016 Ohio 5063 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2016

The Millers clearly were in possession of the surface, which is real property. … First, and most importantly, as discussed above, there is a deed that clearly states "SURFACE ONLY."

State v. Griffin

142 Ohio App. 3d 65 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2001

Further, Griffin presented the testimony of a highly qualified expert in blood spatter, who disputed the prosecution’s theory 'that the absence of blow-back spatter confirmed a homicide. … It was clearly the prosecution, not the defense, that solicited the improper hearsay testimony concerning Griffin’s alleged use of the knives to threaten his wife.

State v. Godley

2018 Ohio 4253 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2018

California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525 (1975). {¶11} “In order to establish an effective waiver of right to counsel, the trial court must make sufficient inquiry to determine whether defendant fully understands … Godley did not respond in either the affirmative or the negative; instead, Godley continued to object to “any further statements here today” on the basis of his “sovereign immunity” and the fact that the State was “trying

State v. Shaw, Unpublished Decision (7-29-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2002

After reviewing the facts, the Moore court held at syllabus "[t]he smell of marijuana, alone, by a person qualified to recognize the odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a search." … The syllabus clearly states "the smell of marijuana, alone" as does the dicta at 54.

State v. Kaaz

2017 Ohio 5669 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2017

The testimony clearly 1. … s siblings were to be considered hearsay as Kaaz suggests, those statements would only qualify as hearsay statements because one of J.R.'s siblings testified prior to J.R.'s testimony.

State v. Turner, Unpublished Decision (8-10-2006)

2006 Ohio 4098 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2006

It indicates clearly to the jury that the party having the burden of proof will be entitled to their verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find the greater amount of credible evidence sustains the … issue which is to be established before them.

State v. Gonzalez, 08ap-345 (12-16-2008)

2008 Ohio 6605 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2008

AT clearly testified that appellant fondled the area of her breasts and fondled her buttocks. … After her competency to testify was established, she described in detail the occurrences on the evening she said she was sexually assaulted.

Pierre Invests., Inc. v. CLE Capital Group, Inc.

202 N.E.3d 870 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 2022

Gazian testified at his deposition that he sought out and initiated contact with CLS by email because appellant had previously abandoned one or two efforts to qualify for conventional bank financing for the $10 million … Yet, the Loan Commitment clearly contains an integration clause, which Mr. Gazian kept. When asked at his deposition, “And you understand that this document 15.

Moran v. Riverfront Diversified, Inc.

197 Ohio App. 3d 471 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 2011

Because plaintiff has provided no evidence of her income or her ability (or inability) to pay the costs of arbitration, it is unclear whether she would qualify for the waiver. … In refusing to enforce an arbitration clause in the homeowner-plaintiffs contract, the Ohio Supreme Court opined: “The record in this case clearly would support a finding that the arbitration clause violated principles of

City of Bowling Green v. Castle, Unpublished Decision (2-27-1998)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1998

issue which is to be established before them. … Appellee responds that the officers were qualified to form reliable opinions that the ceramic pipe contained burnt marijuana residue.

Cantu v. Cantu, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2003

While appellant's assignment of error also includes an argument that the court failed to retain jurisdiction over the spousal support order, he fails to support this argument in his brief and the trial court clearly stated … the acquisition of a professional degree of the other party; "(k) The time and expense necessary for the spouse who is seeking spousal support to acquire education, training, or job experience so that the spouse will be qualified

State v. Hollingshead

214 N.E.3d 1233 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 22, 2023

. {¶5} The State presented the charges to a jury and established that Hollingshead confessed to using controlled substances during her pregnancy. … Edwin Shaw Hosp., 104 Ohio St.3d 390, 2004-Ohio-6549, 819 N.E.2d 1079, statutes “ ‘may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or abridged; significance and effect should, if