Case law

State v. Rosas

2021 Ohio 3677 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2021

However, the CBCF determined Rosas to be too low risk to qualify for the program. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Rosas to two years of community control sanctions. … As noted before, a reviewing court must consider all the evidence in the record, the reasonable inferences, and the credibility of the witnesses to determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly

King v. King

2019 Ohio 1561 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2019

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 … (Emphasis added.) {¶ 18} As quoted, the language of R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)(a) clearly and unambiguously states that all sources of income, including property deemed to be 8.

State v. Small

162 Ohio App. 3d 375 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2005

In addition, by establishing a threshold requirement — that a challenged state action implicate a fundamental right — before requiring more than a reasonable relation to a legitimate state interest to justify the action, … Those individuals or offenders are described in here very clearly. The thrust of the statute is to make sure that the public knows the whereabouts of people who commit sexually-oriented or sexual offenses. Mr.

In re J.G.

2021 Ohio 1624 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 10, 2021

the order itself remains in effect.) {¶39} Moreover, because the February 5, 2020 Judgment Entry did not constitute a final appealable order, J.G. had no expectation of finality from that judgment since it was clearly … It does not define “person” or specify the type of harm that qualifies for restitution.

Fowler v. Indian River Juvenile Corr. Facility

2021 Ohio 4422 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2021

. §4123.01(C)(4), to establish the extent of the Psychological Condition prior to the Incident. … (“To the contrary, Plaintiff's own testimony, and that of her expert, clearly establish that her MDD pre-existed the Incident.”

State v. Weaver

178 Ohio App. 3d 504 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2008

The law clearly permits this kind of expert testimony, and Dr. Mieeli did not go beyond permissible boundaries and opine whether these children were in fact abused by Bell.” (Emphasis added.) … A criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation is not violated when a qualified expert DNA analyst testifies at trial in place of the DNA analyst who actually conducted the testing.” State v.

State v. Riley

2013 Ohio 1332 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2013

Otherwise, an accomplice instruction may become necessary only in certain “rare circumstances” where a person might have been an accomplice, but was never indicted, such as a situation in which he or she received immunity … It is well established, though, that failure to object or otherwise raise venue issues in a juvenile complaint waives the matter on appeal. See, e.g., State v.

Dueck v. Kerrigan

2025 Ohio 1253 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2025

“The Clifton Club, a social club operating in Clifton Park since 1902, is a members-only establishment.” Dueck I at ¶ 2. … the Clifton Club Members constitutes a public use; because the access to the Beach and Beach Property permitted and regulated by Defendant Trustees to the Club Members does not qualify as a public use,

Geesaman v. St. Rita's Medical Center

183 Ohio App. 3d 555 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2009

Thaler provided testimony to establish proximate causation, witnesses for the two defendant doctors and Dr. … Lanzieri qualified as a medical expert in radiology. Therefore, Civ.R. 32(A)(3) was satisfied.

In Re Lambert, 2007-G-2751 (6-8-2007)

2007 Ohio 2857 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2007

Holland qualified for food stamps, because he was disabled and was on Medicaid, and Frasure qualified for food stamps, because she was receiving workers' compensation benefits. … However, as stated by the Supreme Court of Ohio: "the trial court [is not] required to credit evidence in support of maintaining the parental relationship when evidence supporting termination outweighs it clearly and convincingly

State v. Massey, Unpublished Decision (11-28-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 2000

Similarly, Sheppard's testimony did not establish that he was a qualified witness. … Consequently, he is not a qualified witness as that term is used in Evid.R. 803(6).

State v. Gartrell

2014 Ohio 5203 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 2014

“‘[T]he smell of marijuana, alone, by a person qualified to recognize the odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause to search a motor vehicle, pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.’” … Gartrell did not object to the trial court qualifying Rentz as an expert concerning scientific analysis of controlled substances, including heroin.

Jeffrey Allen Industries, L.L.C. v. Manco

2014 Ohio 268 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2014

Offenburger [appellant], on the other hand, hired two young but well- qualified attorneys,… Mr. … The mere size of the verdict is insufficient to establish proof of passion or prejudice.

Barnett v. Carr, Unpublished Decision (9-17-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2001

We find that those cases, along with Civ.R. 56(E), clearly hold that supporting and opposing affidavits cannot themselves contain hearsay or other inadmissible evidence. … In contrast, "qualified" nuisance is premised upon negligence. To recover damages for a qualified nuisance, negligence must be averred and proven. Id . at 713 and 715; Allen Freight Lines, Inc. v. Consol.

Price v. Matco Tools, 23583 (9-28-2007)

2007 Ohio 5116 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2007

The trial court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on October 23, 2006, concluding that genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment, including whether Appellant was qualified for her position, whether Matco … Further compounding the confusion is the fact *Page 9 that Appellant's intention not to pursue these claims is clearly expressed, yet coupled with a request for the court to act in order to effectuate dismissal.

In re C.K.

2022 Ohio 3121 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 7, 2022

The photographs do not clearly and convincingly depict extreme bruising  8 on the child. … Moreover, the police officer did not testify that she was qualified to offer opinions about the severity of the child’s injuries, nor did she offer any such testimony. {¶19} The officer further testified that she

Humanus Corp. v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

165 N.E.3d 776 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2020

Pertinent provisions state that Humanus screens qualified educational professionals prior to referring such individuals to the school. … To find an abuse of discretion, we must conclude that the trial court's decision was without a reasonable basis and clearly wrong. Id.

Lawless v. Lawrence Cty. Bd. of Edn.

141 N.E.3d 267 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2020

Instead, the special audit report observed that the contract language on the performance incentive “did not clearly define the word ‘unencumbered’ nor did it clearly define which general fund balance(s) were to be used … Id. at ¶ 15-16. {¶24} Even if a special audit qualified as an “action” for purposes of the duty to defend clause, it was not “brought against” Lawless; rather, the auditor conducted a special audit of ESC in accordance

Cincinnati v. State

2024 Ohio 2425 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2024

State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149, 2002-Ohio-2005, 766 N.E.2d 963, Amended R.C. 9.68 no longer qualified as a “general law” under the Home Rule Amendment, meaning that it effectively violated the Ohio Constitution’s reservation … See City of Columbus, 2023-Ohio-2858, 223 N.E.3d 540, at ¶ 49 (“[W]e do not find the evidence in the record before us clearly and convincingly established the City would suffer imminent and irreparable injury in 2022 if

State v. Glenn

2018 Ohio 2326 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 2018

-8- Under Ohio law and elsewhere, it is crystal clear that “any passion or rage felt by an offender who has had time to cool off does not qualify … Even if such a report were admissible concerning Glenn’s subjective state of mind, an issue we are not addressing, the record does not contain any report or clearly indicate that one was prepared.