Case law

Warden v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources

2014 Ohio 35 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2014

to establish disparate impact." … Clearly not. People that young will not have enough years in the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") to retire.

In Re Thompson v. V.F.W. of the U.s, Unpublished Decision (4-3-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2000

In this context, abuse of discretion implies that the decision is "without reasonable basis and is clearly wrong." Id. at 581. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the employee must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) she was a member of the statutorily protected class, (2) she suffered an adverse employment action

Ripley v. McDevitt, Unpublished Decision (3-10-2006)

2006 Ohio 1156 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2006

Appellants were clearly aware of some problems with the roof at the time of purchase. However, they appear to have believed that these problems had been repaired. … In order to establish a breach of contract, they must establish, "the existence of a binding contract or agreement; the nonbreaching party performed its contractual obligations; the other party failed to fulfill its contractual

In re C.J.W.

2023 Ohio 4278 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 2023

The magistrate gave “little credibility to her testimony as she is not qualified as an actual substance abuse treatment provider,” a finding not addressed by the trial court in its final decision. … The record clearly shows that Sister is more than capable and willing to provide for C.J.W. and that she genuinely wants what is best for him.

Superior Office Space, L.L.C. v. Carpenter

211 N.E.3d 259 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2023

The entries do not qualify as final orders under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) or (B)(2) because they do not affect a substantial right. … The defendants assert that in the August 7, 2017 judgment entry granting the defendants a preliminary injunction, the trial court “clearly reserved its jurisdiction to grant permanent equitable relief.”

Weber v. Weber

2026 Ohio 674 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2026

This is consistent with the court’s July 17, 2025 order, which ordered the filing of a qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”). … The court held that this statute had “established the limits of a trial court’s jurisdiction to modify an award of spousal support.

Howcroft v. Howcroft

192 Ohio App. 3d 307 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2010

property, ‘during the marriage’ means the period of time between those dates selected and specified by the court.” {¶ 52} Courts, however, should be reluctant to use a de facto termination of marriage date unless the evidence clearly … The party seeking to establish an asset as separate property has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to trace the asset to separate property.

State v. Brown

2013 Ohio 2945 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2013

The trial court qualified her as an expert in the area of identification of physiological fluids and DNA analysis. Ms. … The State presented sufficient evidence to establish that Brown purposely caused Ms.

Stocker v. Stocker

2012 Ohio 5821 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2012

To qualify as the type of marital debt excepted from discharge under §523(a)(15), the [party contesting the dischargeability of the debt] bears the burden to establish … ]he [reviewing] court * * * weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of the witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly

Kumolu v. Kumolu

2025 Ohio 1669 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 8, 2025

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 … Based on all the foregoing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in finding the testimony of Mercy Kumolu as not credible. {¶ 29} Similarly, the trial court clearly stated in its judgment entry

State v. Weil

56 Ohio Law. Abs. 136 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1950

All of these facts were established by unimpeachable evidence from persons who told of their actual observations. This evidence alone establishes, beyond peradventure, a rape upon her by some one. … It is not the province of courts to formulate constitutional guarantees into a set of hard and fast rules, ignoring entirely all qualifying factors.

State Ex Rel. Kroger Co. v. Paysen, Unpublished Decision (7-26-2005)

2005 Ohio 3787 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 2005

She noted further that claimant has an extreme interference with her ability to respond to supervision and to those in authority with an extreme interference with her ability to establish inter-personal relationships and … Rohner clearly says is that claimant is permanently and totally disabled from any gainful employment for which she is otherwise qualified by her age, education, and work experience.

Kruse v. Fulton

17 Ohio Law. Abs. 490 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 1934

It is clearly the intention of both that the depositor is to continue the deposit and retain his right, as a depositor, to make additional deposits and to withdraw money from the account. … The right of set-off is an exercisable right, and not a fixed or natural right, conclusively established by the mere fact that each of the parties has a claim against the other.

State v. Davis, 90050 (6-5-2008)

2008 Ohio 3453 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2008

An appellate court is to accept the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. … The level of intent required to commit a burglary offense is clearly expressed in the statute: "with purpose to commit *** any criminal offense ***."

PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Barker

190 Ohio App. 3d 71 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2010

Based on the information provided by the Barkers, the Mortgage Service Center would determine whether they qualified for a “Workout Option to Avoid Foreclosure.” … PHH objected to the use of Robert Barker’s affidavit as the only evidence to establish a dispute of fact. 5 At trial, the coupon book was admitted into evidence.

Schneider v. Schneider

7 Ohio App. Unrep. 202 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 1990

All of these treatments have some side effects usually related to increase risk of infection due to a lowering of the body's immune system. … "The determination of what facts constitute extreme cruelty in a given case must be left to the broad, but sound, discretion of the trial court and whether sufficient evidence has been presented to establish extreme cruelty

State v. Feller

2012 Ohio 6016 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2012

C-080437, 2009-Ohio-5474, ¶ 62, (an unborn child qualified as a victim separate and apart from its pregnant mother). … We first determine whether the sentences imposed were clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio- 4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, ¶ 14.

Wiesenmayer v. Vaspory

2019 Ohio 1805 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 10, 2019

R.C. 5162.211(D) clearly provides that the lien may include amounts paid after the lien is recorded. Accord Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. v. … In the absence of a probate estate, the state may seek recovery of Medicaid benefits from third parties to whom qualifying assets have passed. Ohio Adm.Code 5101:1-38-10(E)(2)(a).

Colter v. Spanky's Doll House, Unpublished Decision (1-27-2006)

2006 Ohio 408 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2006

. {¶ 2} The present appeal stems from an altercation at an adult-entertainment establishment known as Spanky's Doll House ("Spanky's"). The incident resulted in Eric Colter being shot to death by another patron. … It does not clearly notify an insured that assaults are excluded no matter by whom they are committed. It does not clearly notify an insured that assaults committed by third persons are excluded.

Thombre v. Grange Ins. Co.

2021 Ohio 3998 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2021

. {¶ 23} We find that Grange met its burden to show that its expert was qualified to render an opinion in this case, and that opinion was unrebutted by Thombre. … Section (I)(A)(4)(d) of the policy clearly and unambiguously excludes claims for loss resulting from “water damage,” which the policy defines as “water or water-borne material below the surface of the ground [including]