Case law

Craycraft v. Simmons

2011 Ohio 3273 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2011

Mendenhall, 188 Ohio App.3d 126, 2010-Ohio-1904, ¶5. {¶ 20} In the present case, Craycraft does not dispute that CTC, a public school, qualifies as a political subdivision for purposes of immunity under R.C. 2744.02 … He cites nothing to establish that doing so transforms the activity involved from a governmental function into a proprietary function. {¶ 23} We turn next to Craycraft’s argument that Simmons and Jones lacked immunity

Kraft v. Volunteers of Am. Dayton Residential Reentry Program

2023 Ohio 3912 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2023

immunity, or the absence of a duty of care. … At a minimum, the appellants claim the trial court should have allowed limited discovery to establish whether Wyatt had been out of Ohio during the relevant time. {¶ 15} In entering judgment on the pleadings in

Taulbee v. the Travelers Companies

42 Ohio App. 3d 209 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 1987

Lawrence Burton, Ph.D., that the defective immune system of a patient with cancer can be supplemented through intramuscular injections of several types of specific immune serum protein fractions. … Kunderman and appellee established that Dr. McPhee was a medical doctor and that he treated appellee’s husband.

Solon v. Liu

2021 Ohio 2030 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 2021

Plain error does not occur unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different. Id. … Thus, an interpreter must qualify as an expert under Evid.R. 702.

Brewer v. Cleveland City Schools Board of Education

122 Ohio App. 3d 378 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 1997

The Cleveland Board, filed summary judgment claiming, as a political subdivision, that it was immune from Brewer’s suit under R .C. … The Cleveland Board acknowledges that R.C. 2744.09 denies it immunity when federal and state civil rights claims are made. Wohl v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn. (N.D.Ohio 1990), 741 F.Supp. 688 .

Widican v. Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire L.L.C.

2011 Ohio 6602 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2011

for summary judgment, arguing that the Widicans’ claims were barred by the employer immunity provisions of Ohio’s workers’ compensation law. … Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶12} A determination of the first two prongs clearly involves a question of law.

Applegate v. Duncanside Park

28 Ohio App. 3d 88 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1986

Such conclusion is clearly supported by the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Heckert v. … However, even though sovereign immunity is no longer available as a defense, appellants still must establish the required elements of ap-pellee’s alleged tortious conduct. Strunk, supra, at 431 .

Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co.

183 Ohio App. 3d 40 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2009

A single event cannot establish a pattern regardless of the number of criminal acts emanating therefrom.” … “The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.”

Dunson v. Home-Owners Ins. Co.

2010 Ohio 1928 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 3, 2010

In fact, other insurance policies have much more clearly defined intra-family exclusions. *** However, consideration of the policy language solely in the abstract establishes that it is not so ambiguous … While we recognize that this is a non-exhaustive listing, we fail to see how HOIC’s intra- family UM exclusion would qualify as an affirmative defense under the facts of this case. {¶28} “An affirmative defense

E. Liverpool v. Buckeye Water Dist.

2012 Ohio 2821 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2012

Chapter 2744, which provides for some types of statutorily based governmental immunity, does not grant immunity from contract disputes. … BWD has not even clearly identified which CFBank accounts contain funds set aside only for debt service or debt reserve, much less the source of those funds.

Kobe v. Kobe

61 Ohio App. 2d 67 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 1978

However, not all common law interspousal immunities and disabilities have been removed by these statutes. Lyons v. Lyons (1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 243 . … It is the established law of this state that one spouse is barred from suing the other for the commission of a negligent tort during coverture. Lyons v. Lyons, supra.

Black v. Girard

207 N.E.3d 131 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2023

Bur. of Workers’ Comp., it must be concluded that plaintiffs’ restitution claim is a legal claim for damages and thus barred by Girard’s immunity. … L-14-1039, 2014-Ohio-4342, ¶ 13. 16 Case No. 2021-T-0061 belonging to Cleveland could ‘clearly be traced to particular funds or property’ in the BWC’s possession.”

State v. Reed

2021 Ohio 1623 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 10, 2021

Seneca No. 13-16-06, 2016-Ohio-5554, ¶ 31. {¶17} Notably, notwithstanding the wording of Reed’s assignment of error, the record clearly established the trial court conducted an analysis of these factors both … Thus, Reed’s sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law, and it must therefore be affirmed. See Burks, 2d Dist.

Conrad v. Richland Cty. Children Servs.

2012 Ohio 3871 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2012

The trial court found appellant to be immune from the instant suit, but found that appellees could maintain their claim of recklessness against the John/Jane Doe defendants, employees of Richland County App. … CONRAD HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT HE QUALIFIES UNDER THE ‘GOOD CAUSE’ EXCEPTION BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS INSTANT ACTION. {¶7} “III. MR.

Garrison v. Bobbitt

134 Ohio App. 3d 373 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 1999

“‘The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. … may be asserted to establish nonliability: a * * * *384 “(6) In addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section and in circumstances not covered by that division or sections 8314.07 and

Woeste v. Washington Platform Saloon & Restaurant

163 Ohio App. 3d 70 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2005

This warning complied with the standards established by R.C. 2307.76. The warning set forth the potential dangers in more detail than the Washington Platform warning. … The warning clearly indicated that severe consequences could result, and it placed anyone suffering from a mentioned illness or disorder on notice.

Owens v. ACS Hotels, L.L.C.

2016 Ohio 5506 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 2016

The work product doctrine “provides a qualified privilege protecting the attorney’s mental processes in preparation of litigation, establishing ‘a zone of privacy in which lawyers can analyze and prepare their client’s … In DeCuzzi, the Eighth District Court of Appeals concluded that a city employee’s interrogatories that asked the City to “identify the immunity defense by its type (i.e., absolute, qualified, etc.) and identify what facts

Musson v. Newton Falls

2026 Ohio 1114 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2026

R.C. 2744.03(A) sets out defenses or immunities that a political subdivision employee may assert to establish nonliability in a civil action for damages allegedly caused by an act or omission in connection with a governmental … may be asserted to establish nonliability:

State ex rel. Vanni v. McMonagle

2013 Ohio 500 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2013

Berea, 7 Ohio St.2d 85, 218 N.E.2d 428 (1966). {¶4} Prohibition does not lie unless it clearly appears that the court possesses no jurisdiction of the cause that it is attempting to adjudicate or the court is about … Gwin, 64 Ohio St.3d 245, 1992-Ohio-20, 594 N.E.2d 616. {¶8} In addition, it is well-established that judges, counsel, parties, and witnesses are immune from civil suits for defamatory remarks made during and relevant

Krieger v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co.

176 Ohio App. 3d 410 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 8, 2008

of the immunity defense, because it asserted statutory immunity in its first answer to appellees’ amended complaint. … Clearly, by the time the case proceeded to trial, the city was on notice that there *434 was a potential for liability in this case.