Case law

Fiske v. Rooney

105 Ohio App. 3d 269 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 1995

Upon arriving at the emergency room, the appellant told the personnel there that he was HIV-positive, meaning that he was infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus known to cause Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ( … Therefore, the appellant clearly did not receive the same treatment at SOMC as he did at Doctors North. The appellee also argues that the appellant’s claims that the hospital failed to obtain a surgeon is incorrect.

Ayersville Water & Sewer Dist. v. Geiger

2012 Ohio 2689 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2012

Furthermore, R.C. 6119.05 “unequivocally and clearly reads that the board of trustees’ approval of the inclusion will not take effect if the majority of the qualified electors file a written remonstrance with the secretary … The easement clearly describes its size and scope, establishing that it will be 20 feet wide centered on the sewer line, and the purpose is for sewerage on the property. (Def. Ex. D).

Rider v. Repass

8 Ohio App. 293 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 1917

The fourth and last error relied upon is as to whether or not the required number of qualified electors signed said petitions; and whether or not the evidence offered establishes the fact that they were qualified as required … This section clearly and specifically defines who is a qualified elector. The statute is in no wise ambiguous.

State v. Minor

47 Ohio App. 3d 22 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1988

R. 702 requires that the trial court determine whether the witness is qualified to give an expert opinion. Evid. R. 104(A). … As such, we cannot conclude that the trial court clearly abused its discretion when it found that the expert was qualified, under Evid.

State v. Fork

207 N.E.3d 56 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2023

The trial court granted summary judgment to the governmental defendants on the basis they were immune from suit; the appellate court affirmed. Id. … We need not consider whether it also qualifies under the exception for “farm machinery.”

Cleveland v. Graham

2024 Ohio 336 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2024

The trial court erred in denying Graham’s motions to dismiss on qualified immunity. IV. Graham’s assault conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence. … Denial of Motion to Dismiss — Qualified Immunity Under his third assignment of error, Graham argues that he is entitled to immunity from the assault charge against him because he was justified, under the

State v. Rhoades

2020 Ohio 2688 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2020

Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). {¶ 30} Rhoades alleges the testimony from Jaide and Jennifer was clearly contradictory; however, he fails to cite any specific contradictions or inconsistencies. … The prosecutor argued the receipt was hearsay and did not qualify for any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule under the rules of evidence.

Havely v. Franklin County, 07ap-1077 (9-25-2008)

2008 Ohio 4889 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2008

Therefore, the general grant of immunity contained in R.C. 2744.02 (A)(1) applies in this case. {¶ 49} The second tier in an immunity analysis focuses on the exceptions to immunity located in R.C. 2744.02 (B). … may be asserted to establish nonliability: (5) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the injury, death, or loss to person or property resulted from the exercise of judgment or discretion in determining whether

T.B. v. Summit Cty. Children Servs. Bd.

2019 Ohio 3346 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2019

Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 449 (1996). {¶12} “We have * * * *determined that ‘CSB is clearly a political subdivision entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1)[ .]’” Lindsey v. Summit Cty. … “[O]nce immunity has been established pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), we turn to the five exceptions to immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)- (5) to determine if they apply.” Lindsey at ¶ 28.

Havens v. Union Twp.

2019 Ohio 1401 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2019

from suit pursuant to the political subdivision tort immunity laws, i.e., R.C. … This court finds that Havens has a sufficient personal stake in the outcome of this case to establish standing.

Paul v. Moore

102 Ohio App. 3d 748 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 1995

Thus, these cases, rather than being in conflict as appellants contend, simply establish the limits of the term “perpendicular” for purposes of the statute. … English (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 371 , 602 N.E.2d 655 (trial court did not abuse discretion in treating an otherwise qualified expert as a lay witness where, rather than giving opinion testimony, he was merely describing how

Davis v. Black

70 Ohio App. 3d 359 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1991

Even assuming there to be a qualified privilege under the circumstances, immunity is not absolute, but instead, the defamation is actionable if the statements were maliciously made. … Clearly, the supervisor for whom an employer may be vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior is also an employer within this definition.

Agrawal v. Univ. of Cincinnati

2017 Ohio 8644 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2017

According to the letter, Agrawal would be "encouraged to establish an interdepartmental center for distributed computing" and provided a reduced teaching load of one course per quarter for three of four academic quarters. … The officer or employee may participate in the immunity determination proceeding before the court of claims to determine whether the officer or employee is entitled to personal immunity under

Mashburn v. Dutcher

2012 Ohio 6283 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2012

The Relevant Statutes {¶13} R.C. 2744.02 establishes governmental immunity for political subdivisions and their employees: “ * * * [a] political subdivision is not liable in damages in a civil … His testimony was not definitive and does not create a dispute of material fact. {¶6} In conclusion, we find appellant has not stated any operative facts establishing an exception to statutory immunity.

Pietrangelo v. Lorain Cty. Printing & Publishing Co.

100 N.E.3d 1028 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2017

He then asserts that the statements in The Press’s article were “clearly materially false,” “clearly published with legal malice[,]” “clearly published without privilege[,]” “clearly defamatory[,]” and were “defamation … Pietrangelo failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a plausible constitutional violation and/or he could not establish that their alleged conduct lacked a rational basis.

Midstate Educators Credit Union, Inc. v. Werner

175 Ohio App. 3d 288 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2008

Appellant further contends that its evidence in support of summary judgment clearly established that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … The defendant sought leave to amend its answer on March 19,1996, to assert an affirmative defense of statutory immunity.

Butorac v. Osmic

2023 Ohio 1812 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 2023

Hugh’s motion started from the premise that his actions were in good faith, and that therefore, he was immune from suit based on the filing of the 2013 lawsuit. … In that context the court noted that [t]he question here * * * is whether the actual-malice standard required to defeat a qualified privilege in a defamation claim * * * must be met for tortious interference

City of Dublin v. Finkes

83 Ohio App. 3d 687 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1992

In order to qualify as a prior nonconforming use, a land use must meet two requirements. … The city now argues, for the first time, that defendant failed to establish this requirement at trial.

State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Lucas County Board of Elections

43 Ohio App. 3d 176 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 1988

Therefore, the city charter, not spelling out who is a qualified elector, and the charter, requiring recognition of the statute, incorporates the state statute which clearly spells out who is a “qualified elector,” and, thus … Under that chapter, R.C. 3501.11 provides inter alia: “(T) Establish and maintain a voter registration of all qualified electors in the county who offer to register [.]”

Thomas Vending, Inc. v. Slagle, Unpublished Decision (2-3-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2000

available at common law or established by the Revised Code. … For the foregoing reasons, defendant is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on immunity.