Case law

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

State v. Arrington

14 Ohio App. 3d 111 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1984

While such a standard entails an assessment of the evidence in terms of greater and lesser weight, the burden nevertheless rests with the prosecution to establish that the confession was voluntary. … (“Once immunity has been discussed, there is a substantial risk that subsequent statements made by defendant are involuntary and made in reliance upon the promise of immunity. * * * Where the record discloses a promise of

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.

Harris v. Bradley

2011 Ohio 445 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 2011

THE DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.” I. {¶17} Appellant argues the trial court erred when it granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. … VI. {¶31} Appellant argues in his final Assignment of Error that the Appellees are not entitled to qualified immunity, as argued by Appellees in their summary judgment motion. {¶32} Based on our findings

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

State ex rel. Walgate v. Kasich

93 N.E.3d 417 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2017

11 equal protection clause, the Supreme Court of Ohio clearly and specifically restricted appellant's claim on remand to the equal protection claim. … Walgate, 2016-Ohio-1176 at ¶ 52. {¶ 39} Third, appellees argue that under precedent established by the Slaughter- House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall) 36 (1872), the right to pursue or exercise a trade is not a privilege

Forman v. Kreps

2016 Ohio 1604 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2016

Glazer was qualified to testify as an expert on orthopedic surgery. … However, Kreps does not establish how a lack of an expert report prejudiced his case.

Ohio Edison Co. v. Carroll

14 Ohio App. 3d 421 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 1984

State (1972), 31 Ohio St. 2d 132 [ 60 O.O.2d 100 ], may have ultimately had as it concerns another matter, the doctrine of governmental immunity, the concurring opinion of Justice Corrigan in Krause, supra, at 148 , clearly … “Instead, the majority of the Court of Appeals chose to ignore the well known precedents established by this court on the question of sovereign immunity and to flout the legal doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere

Wolf v. Big Lots Stores, 07ap-511 (4-17-2008)

2008 Ohio 1837 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2008

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clearly stated that, for purposes of R.C. 4123.74 , workers' compensation immunity, an individual may under certain circumstances be considered the employee of more than one employer qualifying … Subsequent cases have established the primacy of these factors in controlling workers' compensation immunity. See, e.g., Foran v.

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.

Williams v. Ashland Chemical Co.

52 Ohio App. 2d 81 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 1976

of the various decisions of the courts in Ohio on this subject, we conclude that the legislature in enacting the provisions of Ohio’s workmen’s compensation laws, and in carrying out the constitutional mandates thereon, clearly … The mere fact that a product has been sold by a vendor to a vendee does not per se make the vendee of the product primarily liable and the vendor secondarily liable, and thereby establish an implied contract of indemnity

East Ohio Gas Co. v. City of Akron

60 Ohio App. 2d 21 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 1978

C. 4933.12 (C) is qualified, however, by a permission to discontinue service where “The account of the consumer is in arrears thirty days or more* * *.” … Section 3-A of the ordinance qualifies its prohibition where the customer’s account is 30 days in arrears as of October 15.

Scanlon v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

2 Ohio App. Unrep. 276 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1990

Commrs. (1981), 2 Ohio App. 3d 410 and states that the case is still relevant to establish the definition of nuisance under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3). … In view of the foregoing discussions, Fulton County clearly is immune from civil liability for its failure to properly place signs at the Leggett Road crossing.

In re Sanders

237 N.E.3d 345 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2024

Sanders satisfied the time requirements to qualify for the rebuttable presumption under R.C. 2952.25(C)(5). … Thus, the General Assembly determined, notwithstanding a person’s underlying offense, that they may qualify for a CQE.

State v. Reed, 08ap-20 (11-20-2008)

2008 Ohio 6082 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2008

Thus, clearly, appellant cannot establish prejudice even if we assume appellant is correct that his counsel erred in seeking to introduce appellant's prior unredacted arrest warrant, as appellant is unable to show that there … However, immunity is not appropriate in the either/or situation; it could actually hinder the search for truth.

Mills Van Lines, Inc. v. Prudential Real Estate & Relocation Servs.

2011 Ohio 3833 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2011

Even assuming appellee made a defamatory statement that tortiously interfered with appellant’s business relationship with Toyota, appellee, nevertheless, is immune from liability due to its qualified privilege of a common … Thus, we affirm the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment. {¶ 17} Where a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of defamation or tortious interference, the defendant may invoke a qualified privilege

State v. Ferland

2013 Ohio 149 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2013

Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different. State v. Palmer, 12th Dist. No. CA2005-08-097, 2006-Ohio-2712, 1. … Trooper Butler was qualified by training and experience to use the K-55 radar.

Conese v. Nichols

131 Ohio App. 3d 308 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 1998

QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE A. Federal Constitutional Analysis Under federal First Amendment jurisprudence, a qualified privilege 2 attaches to criticism of official conduct. … Mere failure to investigate the accuracy of a news story cannot, without more, establish liability. St. Amant v.

Stonerock v. Miller Bros. Paving, Inc.

72 Ohio App. 3d 123 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1991

by congress, only to the extent that their mutual connection with intrastate work may and shall be clearly separable and distinguishable from interstate or foreign commerce, and then only when such employer and any of his … No reversible error will be found to have been committed provided that the law is clearly and fairly expressed to the jury and that they are able to understand it as it applies to the facts in the case at hand.

Butler Cty. Joint Voc. School Dist. v. Andrews, Ca2006-10-245 (11-5-2007)

2007 Ohio 5896 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 2007

The board's March 3, 2004 resolution clearly indicates acceptance of appellant's resignation only. … FROM PUNITIVE DAMAGES." {¶ 76} In his fifth assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court improperly found that appellee qualified for the statutory immunity provided for in R.C.