Case law

Brewer v. Butler County Building & Zoning Department

142 Ohio App. 3d 567 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 14, 2001

Once immunity is established under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), the second tier of analysis is whether any of the five exceptions to immunity in subsection (B) apply. Cater, 83 Ohio St.3d at 29 , 697 N.E.2d at 615. … Assignment of Error No. 2: “The court erred to the prejudice of the appellant-plaintiff in failing to clearly render judgment on a specific law and rights that are contained in the complaint before the court.”

Sikora v. Gibbs

132 Ohio App. 3d 770 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1999

Further, the memorandum was clearly prepared in anticipation of trial. … Documents prepared in anticipation of litigation substantially undermine the presumed guarantee of circumstantial trustworthiness in qualified business records.

Hopkins v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.

247 N.E.3d 472 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2024

Nevertheless, relying on the computerized docket entry, appellant filed its motion for summary judgment on July 31, 2023, believing the dispositive motion was filed in accordance with the timeline established by the court … In the first assignment of error, appellant argues “the trial court’s conflicting orders about leave to file GCRTA’s motion for summary judgment were clearly an abuse of discretion.”

Prior v. Ohio Department of Human Services

123 Ohio App. 3d 381 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1997

Under this provision, appellant’s spouse is clearly a beneficiary of the trust. … This provision clearly provides a benefit to appellant sufficient to qualify him as a beneficiary pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 5101:1-39-271(A)(1)(e).

State v. Ferguson

2019 Ohio 1143 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2019

. {¶ 12} Trial counsel did not assert that Ferguson was immune from prosecution under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b), which provides, in relevant part: Subject to division (B)(2)(f) of this section, a qualified individual … Accordingly, the record reflects that the immunity granted by R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) did not apply to Ferguson’s circumstances. B.

Tanksley v. Howell

2020 Ohio 4278 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2020

Tanksley asserted defendants were not entitled to immunity on his race discrimination claim, as their discriminatory conduct satisfied the exception to political-subdivision employee immunity in either R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)( … In order to establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she: (1) is a member of a protected class, (2) suffered an adverse employment action, (3) was qualified for the position in question, and (

Porter v. Ward, 07 Ca 33 (10-2-2007)

2007 Ohio 5301 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 2007

It is well-established under Ohio law that court clerks and other court employees have absolute immunity against suits arising out of *Page 6 the performance of judicial or quasi-judicial duties. See Inghram v. … At least one Ohio appellate court has held that an inmate's state-pay does not qualify as protected "personal earnings" under R.C. 2716.01 (B). See Leybovich v. Grover (Nov. 2, 1998), Warren App. No. CA98-04-041.

Austin v. Warrensville Hts.

176 N.E.3d 67 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2021

Thus, the Austins failed to establish the second-tier of immunity under Cater; that is, that an exception to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B) applied. … Even if the city had not been entitled to immunity, the trial court properly found that the Austins failed as a matter of law to establish the elements for a negligent misrepresentation claim.

State v. Jones

2016 Ohio 7702 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2016

Alarafi also initially testified that Randy told him that T.J. had not been immunized, but later admitted, after reviewing his notes, that Randy said he was not sure whether she had been immunized; the record indicates … that T.J. had, in fact, been immunized. {¶13} Dr.

Wilson v. Patton

66 Ohio App. 3d 46 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1990

We agree with appellee that the *161 amendment has the effect of now clearly manifesting the intention of the General Assembly that in an action against an officer or employee of the state wherein it is claimed the immunity … R.C. 4121.80 contains the clearly expressed intent of the General Assembly that it be applied retrospectively. 3.

State v. Moore

165 Ohio App. 3d 538 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2006

Rather, Smith simply reiterated the well-established rule that an individual cannot prove wrongful imprisonment merely by proving that he was found not guilty of the underlying crime. {¶ 14} “The wrongful imprisonment statutes … defines a wrongfully imprisoned individual as someone who “was found guilty of, but did not plead guilty to” an aggravated felony or felony. {¶ 20} Generally, we strictly construe statutes that waive the state’s sovereign immunity

Bevelacqua v. Tancak

2025 Ohio 217 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2025

“In the absence of circumstances [that] clearly indicate an obvious cause and effect  7 relationship, the issue of proximate cause is ordinarily one for the determination … The trial court also referenced evidence establishing that the pursuit was based on a minor traffic violation and that it occurred at 2:30 a.m. when there was minimal traffic present.

State v. Bump

177 N.E.3d 314 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2021

(sic) 185, 542 N.E. 2D (sic) 636 (1989); AN ERROR IS RELEVANT AND MATERIAL TO THE DEFENSE; THE ERROR IS EVIDENCE HERE DUE TO THE LACK OF IMMUNITY OR DEFENSE PROVIDED TO ARGUE THIS CASE. … commit plain error when it allowed Officer Hough to testify about his personal observations. {¶21} Moreover, assuming, arguendo, the trial court erred in admitting testimony of Officer Hough because he was not qualified

Kniskern v. Township of Somerford

112 Ohio App. 3d 189 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 1996

The trial court erred prejudicially, in finding the driver the sole proximate cause of the accident, and that ODOT had immunity, when plaintiffs’ expert’s] uncontradicted affidavits and deposition evidence established — that … The language of the Trumbull County Probate Court order is clearly broad enough to encompass plaintiffs’ claims against Nino Cavaliere’s auto insurance policy with Western Reserve.

Norwell v. City of Cincinnati

133 Ohio App. 3d 790 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 28, 1999

Additionally, there are important analytic differences between official- and personal-capacity suits regarding both the degree of proof and the availability of immunity defenses {e.g., qualified immunity). … Obviously, if there was probable cause to make these arrests, the defense of privilege was established.

Czerniak v. Owens, Unpublished Decision (8-25-2006)

2006 Ohio 4436 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2006

Qualified Immunity Does Not Extend to Appellees {¶ 23} Qualified or Good Faith immunity may protect governmental actors with less complex discretionary responsibilities. Harlow v. … Finally, because Owens and Mitchey violated Czerniak's clearly established constitutional rights, qualified immunity does not extend to them.

Daugherty v. Wallace

87 Ohio App. 3d 228 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1993

Clearly, the major purpose of R.C. 4123.59 is to fulfill this objective. … Appellants argue that the potential employability of many persons who qualify for limited GA benefits is equally as poor as those who qualify for unlimited DA benefits.

American Federation of State v. Blue Cross of Central Ohio

64 Ohio App. 2d 262 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 1, 1979

Chapter 2743, the General Assembly waived the state’s immunity from liability in exchange for a complainant’s waiver of his cause of action against state officers or employees. … Kosydar (1975), 44 Ohio St. 2d 128, 130 , “***an action in declaratory judgment is clearly a superior remedy for plain *267 tiffs.”

State v. Pippin

2019 Ohio 1387 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2019

If the offense is a qualifying assault offense, the offender caused serious physical harm to another person while committing the offense, and, if the offense is not a qualifying assault offense, the offender … “To establish plain error, appellant must be able to demonstrate that but for the victim impact statements, the trial judge would clearly have sentenced appellant [to a lesser sentence].”

State v. Rothermel

2014 Ohio 3168 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2014

Cuyahoga No. 97175, 2012-Ohio-2385, ¶ 28 (striking someone in the head with a bottle qualifies as deadly force). {¶ 17} The weight of the evidence, however, does not establish that Rothermel had a bona fide belief … danger of death or great bodily injury that required the use of deadly force, and because the record clearly establishes that Rothermel used more force than reasonably necessary, the trial court’s decision finding that