Case law

Washington Poultry, Inc. v. Dill

28 Ohio App. 2d 242 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 1971

This court distinguishes the present case from Brown v. Columbus Stamping & Mfg. … The facts herein are not the same as the Brown case. There was no objection by defendants to the complaint by motion or affirmative defense. The parties stipulated that the sum of $472.80 was the amount of the account.

Mennel Milling Co. v. Limbach

72 Ohio App. 3d 330 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 1991

We think the following language from the case of Ford Motor Co. v. … The items described were conveyor belting, bolts and v-belts for the conveyor system.

Horton v. Mings

68 Ohio App. 385 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1941

any order of said board.” … Mayers, v. Gray et al., Bd. of Optometry, 114 Ohio St., 270 , 151 N. E., 125 , wherein it is said that a similar board in revoking a professional license “is performing an executive and not a judicial function.”

Lee v. Nick Mayer Lincoln

74 Ohio App. 3d 306 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 28, 1991

In Peyton v. … Sellers v. Bd. of Rev. (1981), 1 Ohio App.3d 161 , 1 OBR 473, 440 N.E.2d 550 . In Loy v. Unemp. Comp.

Dime Savings Bank v. Morton

25 Ohio App. 157 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 1927

In passing we will cite the following Ohio cases, which we feel are in point: Landis v. Kelly, 27 Ohio St., 567 ; Scott v. Perlee, 39 Ohio St., 63 , 48 Am. Rep., 421 ; Henkle v. Salem Mfg. … Co. v. Howard, 40 Ohio St., 8 .

Schack v. Geneva Civil Service Commission

86 Ohio App. 3d 689 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 1993

The trial court erred in finding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Rocky River v. State Employment Relations Board, 43 Ohio St. … In Nuspl v.

Trivison, Trustee v. Steiner

41 Ohio App. 35 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 1931

Board of Elections to have paid him. … And had the Board of Elections _ paid this money to The Advance Printing and Label Company and it had refused to pay the money over to Steiner, Steiner v/ould undoubtedly have had a good cause of action against the Board

Coy v. Montgomery County Board of Health, Unpublished Decision (4-7-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2000

Coy cites Antonik v. Chamberlain (1947), 81 Ohio App. 465 , and Routsaw v. … The Ohio Hair Products Co. v.

Rogers v. City of Cincinnati

6 Ohio App. 218 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1916

board.” … (Anderson v. Commissioners, 25 Ohio St., 13 ; Jones, Auditor, v. Commissioners, 57 Ohio St., 189; Swartz v. Commissioners, 54 Ohio St., 669 , and Debolt v. Trustees of Cincinnati Tp., 7 Ohio St., 237.)

Veterans of World War I v. Levy

70 Ohio Law. Abs. 49 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1954

In the case of Hullman et al v. … In the case of Dayton Building & Savings Assoc, et al v.

Bertalan v. Bertalan

2026 Ohio 1773 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 14, 2026

In that motion, George asserted “newly substantiated evidence of judicial misconduct and denial of due process” and referenced findings by the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct (“the Board”) relating to the trial court … Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Commrs., 89 Ohio St.3d 205, 206 (2000), citing Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172, 174 (1994).

State v. Locke

2018 Ohio 27 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 2, 2018

[Cite as State v. Locke, 2018-Ohio-27.] … State v. Raver, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP–604, 2003– Ohio–958, ¶ 21, citing State v.

SSN II, Ltd. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Revision

2013 Ohio 1112 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2013

R.C. 5717.05; Black v. Cuyahoga Cty. … * * *." {¶ 14} In Funtime, Inc. v.

Riggs v. Richard, 2007ca00328 (9-15-2008)

2008 Ohio 4697 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2008

Hubbell v. … .); Carver v.

State ex rel. Young v. Butler Cty. Personnel Office

2014 Ohio 5331 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 2014

Wilson v. Industrial Commission (1997) 80 Ohio St.3d 250, 253. … Jackson v. Indus.

Wright v. Utzinger

36 Ohio Law. Abs. 217 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1942

Counsel for appellant in their brief refer us to the case of Hudson v Meyers, 13 Abs 732 , wherein it was held that it was error to deny a motion by a defendant in an action on question to compel the plaintiff to itemize … for room and board.

Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist. v. Clow

57 Ohio App. 132 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1937

In the case of Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist. v Haynes, and in 26 other related cases, in an opinion filed on February 23, 1937, and reported in 53 Oh Ap 284, 9 NE (2d) 705, ( 24 Abs 258 ) we said with reference to … But inasmuch as the power of making appraisements was delegated to a board of appraisei’s, the board must be held to have inherent power to adopt proper rules to make its action legal and uniform.”

State v. Fussell

2016 Ohio 275 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2016

See, e.g., State v. Bake, 7th Dist. … State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, at ¶ 51.

State Ex Rel. S. Cent. Ohio Ed. Svc. Ctr., Unpublished Decision (10-1-2003)

2003 Ohio 5273 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 2003

Ryant Commt. v. Lorain Cty. … V.

First Troy National Bank & Trust Co. v. Holder

109 Ohio App. 445 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1959

This fundamental rule of construction is well stated in the case of Findley et al., Trus tees, v. City of Conneaut, 145 Ohio St., 480 , 62 N. E. (2d), 318, where the third paragraph of the syllabus is as follows: “3. … See, also, Townsend’s Exrs. v. Townsend, 25 Ohio St., 477 . The language intentionally used in a will is presumed to have been placed there for a purpose and cannot arbitrarily be ignored.