Case law

State v. Spangler

81 N.E.3d 872 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2017

And the record of the trial court's proceedings should clearly reflect the court's inquiries into the bases of the claim of privilege and the proponent's responses.” State v. … He must not extort from the witness a statement which would be a plenary confession of guilt, or the statement of a circumstance which in connection with other circumstances would establish his guilt.

City of Akron Ex Rel. Christman-Resch v. City of Akron

159 Ohio App. 3d 673 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 2005

Cats, as pets, qualify as property that may be seized. See Newsome v. Erwin (S.D.Ohio 2000), 137 F.Supp.2d 934, 943 . … Immunity {¶ 37} In their final subissue, appellants assert that appellees may not claim sovereign immunity for the euthanization of cats owned by two of the *687 appellants.

State v. Eggleton

2025 Ohio 1186 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2025

Nevertheless, we note that our review of the record establishes that the trial court made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and in its journal entry. … Accordingly, the trial court’s sentence on Count 4 was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Whiting v. Ohio Department of Mental Health

141 Ohio App. 3d 198 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2001

ODMH has filed a cross-assignment of error, claiming that the Court of Claims erred in finding that it was not immune from liability pursuant to R.C. 5122.84. … The standard of review in manifest weight cases has been clearly established.

Darrow v. Zigan, 07ca25 (5-1-2009)

2009 Ohio 2205 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 1, 2009

Because Zigan and Linehan had qualified immunity from Appellant's third-party claims, and because Appellant is unable to establish the privity exception to that immunity, she is unable to maintain a cause of action against … Appellee Zigan has qualified immunity from third-party claims.

Sosa v. Cincinnati, Unpublished Decision (5-20-2005)

2005 Ohio 2449 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 20, 2005

which a reasonable person would have known." 1 This qualified immunity applies to those officials whose decisions are reasonable, even if mistaken. 2 {¶ 10} Whether the officers in this case were entitled to qualified immunity … clearly established that any official in the [officers'] positions would have clearly understood that he was under an affirmative duty to refrain from such conduct." 4 {¶ 11} In attempting to meet this burden, the Sosas

State v. McCarthy

20 Ohio App. 2d 275 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 1969

It is well established, however, that the law does not glad *290 ly suffer the waiver of constitutional rights. See Johnson v. Zerbst (1938), 304 U. S. 458 . The presence of advising counsel does not save the situation. … Moreover, the record shows the advice he gave defendant’s wife was clearly designed to elicit conduct on her part to protect her interests not her husband’s.

Lasley v. Nguyen

172 Ohio App. 3d 741 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2007

In fact, the record clearly establishes that Lasley had visited the chiropractor approximately 45 times in 2004 through the month of October. … Bd. of Commissioners (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711 , 622 N.E.2d 1153 . {¶ 19} Lasley argues that she was “clearly qualified to testify herself’ regarding the nature and extent of her injuries.

Gannon v. Perk

47 Ohio App. 2d 125 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 1975

Such layoffs must not be used as a subterfuge to circumvent civil service rules, and the record must clearly demonstrate that the proposed layoffs are for economy reasons. … Unfortunately, neither of the above interpretations of Sections 116 and 118 are clearly set forth in those sections.

State v. B.J.T.

2019 Ohio 1049 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2019

In this case, appellant fails to establish either prong of his ineffective assistance claim. … No New Information {¶ 25} The record clearly indicates that none of the information in the affidavits is new information.

Ratcliff v. Seitz

2014 Ohio 4412 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 2014

Brauer did not qualify as a “consumer transaction.” … “The first sentence provides a qualified immunity, which exempts a humanitarian’s taking possession of an animal if, and only if, it can be shown at a post-seizure proceeding that the animal was, in fact, neglected at the

Long v. Dennerll, Unpublished Decision (5-26-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals · May 26, 2000

immunity because they were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and appellant failed to establish that their conduct violated clearly established law; and (5) even if appellees were not entitled to qualified … Assignment of Error No. 2 Qualified Immunity Defense Appellant argues in her second assignment of error that Dennerll should not be shielded from liability for civil damages in a 1983 action because his conduct violated clearly

Stacy v. Gibson

2019 Ohio 2751 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 2019

Counsel for Stacy presented Exhibit A, which he described to the court as “a series of emails that established the escrow of * * * those funds.” … Gibson argues that, since the source of the $10,000 held in trust was his 401(k) plan, such funds are immune from collection.

State v. Lynn

230 N.E.3d 1280 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2023

This establishes that Lynn has a “qualifying medical condition” within the meaning of R.C. 3796.01(A)(6). … It further establishes that Lynn has established and maintained a bona fide physician- patient relationship with the recommending physician, (ii) received a diagnosis or confirmation of a "qualifying medical condition"

State v. Williams

93 N.E.3d 90 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2017

See R.C. 3701.143 (stating that the ODH shall issue permits to qualified persons). … Thus, a “senior operator” or an “operator” is qualified to administer the BAC DataMaster.

Waddell v. Ltv Steel Co.

124 Ohio App. 3d 350 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 1997

the Brinkmoeller court stated at 227, 70 O.O.2d at 426 , 325 N.E.2d at 236 : “[A] motion for non-suit is an admission .by defendant, for the purpose of the motion, of the truth of all the statements plaintiff proposes to establish … ‘Where the language itself clearly expresses the legislative intent, the courts need look no further.’ * * * It is the duty of courts to give effect to the words used in the statute, not to delete words used or to insert

Akarah v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

253 N.E.3d 712 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2024

No. 14AP-789, 2015-Ohio-3569, ¶ 27 (stating that “affidavits and depositions taken in * * * [an] EEOC matter * * * are absolutely immune”); Saini v. Cleveland Pneumatic Co., 8th Dist. No. 51913, 1987 Ohio App. … privilege’ ”). {¶ 23} “Once established, a qualified privilege can be defeated by a clear and convincing showing that the communication was made with actual malice.”

City of Cincinnati v. Bossert MacHine Co.

14 Ohio App. 2d 35 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 1968

General or pure statutes of limitation relate to the remedy rather than the right; whereas, in special statutory provisions creating and qualifying a given right if exercised within a given time, the time limitation is an … S.] 518), Daniel Webster said, at page 581: “* * * By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law, which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial

State v. Shamansky

2023 Ohio 405 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2023

Hannum’s BEE III unit are reliable and (2) the State did not establish that Trooper Hannum was qualified to use his BEE III unit or that his specific BEE III unit was accurate. … -8- Case No. 16-22-05 {¶12} As suggested above, Trooper Hannum was clearly qualified by his training and experience to visually estimate the speed of a moving vehicle

West American Insurance v. Hardin

59 Ohio App. 3d 71 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 1989

The Ohio Supreme Court abolished the immunity rule on December 31, 1984 in Kirchner, supra. The record fails to establish when the Hardins learned of the court’s decision to break with the long-standing rule. … It is difficult to judge with any precision that time, but we are confident that reasonable minds could not differ that two years is clearly an excessive time for a person to wait to assert his rights by virtue of change