Case law

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Najar

2013 Ohio 1657 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2013

person with knowledge of the act, event or condition; (3) it must have been recorded at or near the time the transaction; and (4) a foundation must be laid by the custodian of record or some other qualified … Accordingly, appellants’ argument is without merit. {¶52} Appellants further contend that the note is nonnegotiable because “[t]he first full paragraph of Section 11 of the note clearly makes the note subject to

State v. Philpot, Unpublished Decision (6-14-2004)

2004 Ohio 3006 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2004

Therefore, under the three-part Deem test, misdemeanor nonsupport of dependents is clearly a lesser included offense to felony nonsupport of dependents. {¶ 17} The analysis does not end here, however. … There is Ohio authority holding that under such circumstances those 28 weeks would additionally qualify as a failure "to provide support as established by a court order * * *" in violation of R.C. 2919.21 (B). State v.

In the Matter of Mercy Anne G., Unpublished Decision (3-14-2007)

2007 Ohio 1197 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2007

Following voir dire, the court below qualified Drs. … Moreover, appellants have not established, and did not establish *Page 29 below, that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparing the records indicated a lack of trustworthiness.

State v. Brady

2024 Ohio 1169 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2024

. {¶24} An omission constitutes qualifying conduct for endangering children under division (A); an affirmative act need not be proven. State v. … administration of various medications and the insertion of brain drains and a breathing tube during his hospitalization. {¶31} The question is merely whether any rational mind could find the disputed elements were established

State v. Cunningham

2012 Ohio 2794 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2012

“A trial court's finding of no discriminatory intent will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.” State v. … It referenced choking, not shooting, and was clearly a statement made to express frustration, not an intention to harm Serna.”

Miles v. Village of Piketon, Unpublished Decision (11-24-2004)

2004 Ohio 6457 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 2004

." {¶ 4} The standard of review for a Civ.R. 12(C) motion is well established. … expressed therein, the statute may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or abridged; significance and effect should, if possible, be accorded to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act, and

Peters v. Ohio D.N.R., Unpublished Decision (11-4-2003)

2003 Ohio 5893 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2003

Peters failed to participate in the first scheduled examination, a violation clearly outlined in the Ohio Administrative Code Article/Section 123:1-33-02 . … Therefore, as the trial court found, appellant was required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing: (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position that she held; (3) she

City of Independence v. Maynard

25 Ohio App. 3d 20 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1985

Sub-paragraph (3) requires that the person identified as the operator of a proposed solid waste disposal facility is competent and qualified to operate said facility. … The board's conclusions of law are clearly confined to the facts of this case. The first assignment of error of the cross-appeal is overruled.

Bell v. Ohio State Bd. of Trustees, 06ap-1174 (6-7-2007)

2007 Ohio 2790 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 2007

Amendment and dismissed appellant's state law claims against the individual defendants based on appellant's failure to obtain a determination from the Court of Claims regarding the individual defendants' entitlement to personal immunity … Lastly, the federal court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on appellant's Section 1981 claim because appellant came forward with no direct evidence of purposeful discrimination on account of race and failed to establish

State ex rel. Foster v. Evatt

41 Ohio Law. Abs. 46 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 1943

Evatt is the qualified and acting Tax Commissioner of the State of Ohio. … The intendment of the last paragraph of §5546-2 GC is plain and the burden there is clearly placed upon the vendor.

State v. Adams, Unpublished Decision (6-14-2004)

2004 Ohio 3199 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2004

"[A]n enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined." … If you can clearly hear the sound, go back and turn it down.

Cleveland Bd. of Education v. Lesko

2 Ohio App. Unrep. 426 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1990

They had to present evidence of "the validity of the defenses claimed immune to the statute." Id. Riley cites Civ. … Clearly there are two possibilities, not three: the date of the wrongful conduct or the date of discovery which may be established to be the date the plaintiff knew by virtue of the actual injury which gives notice.

State v. Rice, Unpublished Decision (2-6-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2003

Moore (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 47 , held that the "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 contrary, the Moore court merely stated that the "smell of marijuana," as detected by a person qualified to recognize that odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause.

State ex rel. Reisinger v. Indus. Comm.

2019 Ohio 3344 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2019

The magistrate clearly appreciated the fact that relator was wearing safety glasses on the day in question but had not attached the side shields. … In addition, the Employer had an established "Cardinal Rules Policy," which detailed five of the most important safety rules.

In re T.D.S.

2022 Ohio 525 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2022

To establish prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate there is a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” … In light of the juvenile court’s finding T.D.S. delinquent on the weapon while under disability charge advanced in the superseding indictment, in part based on T.D.S.’s concession to having a prior qualifying offense,

Hines v. National City Bank, Unpublished Decision (10-10-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2002

The credit report concerning plaintiff that is dated September 27, 1999, clearly indicates that the subject credit account was reported with "no adverse information." … . {¶ 18} The record also fails to establish any evidence of damage.

Newcomer v. Roan

2016 Ohio 541 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2016

The court found the August 24, 2006 amendment to be ambiguous, thereby failing to clearly and convincingly establish Betty’s intent. {¶ 53} Newcomer’s testimony was crucial to the court’s decision. … The provision does not qualify that the trustee’s determination of the number of shares be limited to include only 39. those shares received from Betty.

State ex rel. James v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

2014 Ohio 2279 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 29, 2014

Comm., 29 Ohio App.3d 145 (10th Dist.1985). {¶ 47} When demonstrating whether an injury qualifies for TTD compensation, it two-part test is used. … Therefore, inasmuch as he was not working, he could not establish a loss of wages and was not entitled to an award of TTD compensation.

State v. Burgess, Unpublished Decision (11-4-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 1999

III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION JUSTIFIED THE SEIZURE OF THE SHOTGUN. … The facts presented sub judice clearly fall within this scope of coming to the aid of a potentially injured person. Patrolman Cochran was summoned to the apartment by Ms. Luckeydoo's father, John Luckeydoo. Mr.

State v. D'ambrosio, Unpublished Decision (3-16-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2000

seek meaningful post-conviction relief and, clearly in death penalty cases, if afforded counsel, he must be afforded competent counsel. … The Ohio scheme does not impart specific, enforceable duties on counsel; it simply provides a method to qualify for appointments.