Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.49s
Allied Associates v. Board of Education, Unpublished Decision (12-2-1999)
Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1999
) which dismissed its 1994 tax complaint in reliance upon the authority of Sharon Village Ltd. v. … See Edgewater Yacht Club v. Cuyahoga County Board off Revision (Aug. 12, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 75584, unreported. Thus, the signature of non-attorney Robert Laughlin on the complaint is not "fatal" to the tax appeal.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2012 Ohio 3554 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 2012
“A clear legal right exists [if] the board . . . enter[s] an order which is not supported by ‘some evidence.’” Kinsey v. … Rail Corp. v. Gorman, 70 Ohio St.2d 274, 275 (1982). “A clear legal right exists where the board abuses its discretion by entering an order which is not supported by ‘some evidence.’” Kinsey v.
Cited 0 timesPublished2016 Ohio 3245 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 2016
R.C. 2725.03; Brown v. Hall, 123 Ohio St.3d 381, 2009-Ohio-5592, 916 N.E.2d 807, ¶ 1. … .; see also Brown, supra; Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787, 894 N.E.2d 692, ¶ 17; Sevayega v. Bobby, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 03MA48, 2003-Ohio-6395, ¶ 4; Rockwell v. Geauga Cty.
Cited 1 timesPublishedState v. Owens, 07 Ma 153 (6-26-2008)
2008 Ohio 3246 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2008
Brown and robbed him. Mr. Brown struggled and tried to escape, at which time he was struck. He was carried to an abandoned apartment and was left alone with Appellant. … State v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Tichenor
113 Ohio App. 470 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1960
The entry in the Court of Common Pleas affirming the decision of the board was filed on April 22, 1959. … This position appears to be fully supported by the cases of Abbott v. Truscon Steel Corp., 78 Ohio Law Abs., 136, and Kromer v. Kear, 86 Ohio App., 309 .
Cited 1 timesPublished2011 Ohio 5779 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2011
Walker primarily relies upon Brown v. Texas (1979), 443 U.S. 47; however, Brown is distinguishable from the instant matter. … Walker, unlike the appellant in Brown, was seen in the back of a private residence as opposed to a public alley. {¶18} Accordingly, we conclude that Brown is distinguishable and that the officer in the instant matter
Cited 5 timesPublishedState ex rel. Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati Highway Co. v. Industrial Commission
70 Ohio App. 2d 41 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 1980
Said decision was vacated by order of the Dayton Regional Board of Review. … Bd. of Edn., v. Johnston (Franklin Co. Ct. of Appeals No. 77AP-910, June 22, 1978), unreported, affirmed (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 132 .
Cited 10 timesPublishedMetro Renovations 12, L.L.C. v. Sabir
215 N.E.3d 1242 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2023
Eastley v. … Hubbard v. Norton, (1875) 28 Ohio St. 116, para. 4 of the syllabus. Adams v. Walton, 5th Dist. Morrow No. 601, 1983 WL 5069, *3; Accord Brown v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedKipp v. Lorain Board of Education, Unpublished Decision (4-4-2001)
Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2001
Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trustees (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 608 , 613 , quoting Kisil v. Sandusky (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 30 , 34 . In making this determination, we apply an abuse of discretion standard. Nauth v. … Goss v. Lopez (1975), 419 U.S. 565 , 577-84 , 42 L.Ed.2d 725 , 737-40 .
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMartin v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction
140 Ohio App. 3d 831 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 2001
In Brown v. … Brown, supra.
Cited 13 timesPublishedState, Ex Rel. Adams v. Pendleton
100 Ohio App. 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 16, 1955
Selby, Aud., v. State, ex rel. Smiley, 63 Ohio St., 541 , 59 N. E., 218 ; State, ex rel. Gallinger, v. Smith, 71 Ohio St., 13 , 38, 72 N. E., 300 . … Moore Oil Co., v. Dauben, 99 Ohio St., 406 , 124 N. E., 232 ; Hauser, Commr., v. State, ex rel. Erdman, 113 Ohio St., 662 , 150 N. E., 42 ; State, ex rel. Gaede, v. Guion, Commr., 117 Ohio St., 327 , 158 N.
Cited 2 timesPublishedRichardson v. Girl Scouts of N.E. Ohio
2014 Ohio 1036 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2014
[Cite as Richardson v. Girl Scouts of N.E. Ohio, 2014-Ohio-1036.] … Zanesville v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedHull v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
37 Ohio App. 3d 94 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1987
For example, in Strohofer v. … The O’Brien v. Egelhoff (1984), 9 Ohio St. 3d 209 , 9 OBR 520, 459 N.E. 2d 886 , and Mathis v.
Cited 3 timesPublished8 Ohio Law. Abs. 608 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1929
Prior to that time, under the above Section, it was held in the case of State v. … Beamer, et al., 109 Oh St, at page 133, and Sommers v. Board of Education. 112 Oh St, 177, these sections of the 'General Code were held to be mandatory, also in Board of Education v. Cox, 117 Oh St 406.
Cited 0 timesPublishedML Waterloo Investors Ltd. v. Akron City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.
2012 Ohio 5156 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2012
Developers Diversified Ltd. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, 84 Ohio St. 3d 32, 36 (1998). … Dist. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedState Ex Rel. Barbuto v. Ohio Edison Co.
16 Ohio App. 2d 55 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 1968
Atty., v. Ohio Power Co., 163 Ohio St. 451 . It is held, in State, ex rel. Ohio Power Co., v. … Atty., v.
Cited 4 timesPublished4 Ohio App. 2d 171 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1965
In the case of Ohio Contract Carriers Assn., Inc., v. … The powers of the board are specified explicitly in Section 707.16, Revised Code, supra. Paraphrasing the language of Taft, J., in the case of A. DiCillo Sons, Inc., v.
Cited 3 timesPublishedState Ex Rel. Kendrick v. Masheter
120 Ohio App. 168 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1963
This court considered the problem presented by these conflicts in its decision in the case of Graul v. … Accordingly, under the provisions of Section 143.011, *172 Revised Code, and Chapter 119, Revised Code, we hold the board’s order to be appealable. * * V’ Under Section 143.012, Revised Code, relator’s appeal to the board
Cited 1 timesPublishedAnderson v. Local Union No 413
29 Ohio Law. Abs. 364 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1939
There are two cases in Ohio, Turner v Turner, 17 Oh St 450, Spangler v Brown, et al, 26 Oh St 389, which hold that it is proper and necessary in a chancery case to file the motion for new trial even after judgment and have … These holdings are consistent with those of Turner v Turner and Spangler v Brown, supra.
Cited 12 timesPublishedSiegel v. St. Vincent Charity Hospital & Health Center
35 Ohio App. 3d 143 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1987
As stated in Williamson Heater Co. v. … Center v.
Cited 3 timesPublished
Ask Donna