Case law

State v. Smith

75 Ohio App. 3d 73 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 1991

In State v. … State v. Brown (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 305 , 528 N.E.2d 523 . It is fundamental that the weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of the facts. State v.

Pickens v. Kroger Co.

2014 Ohio 4825 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2014

The float, with a mixture of the brown root beer and the vanilla ice cream, made a tan liquid. … Co., Inc. v.

Noll v. Nezbeth

63 Ohio App. 3d 46 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 22, 1989

In Royce v. … In Zents v.

Trumbull Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Rickard

2017 Ohio 6945 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 2017

Goldfuss v. … Ivancic v. Enos, 11th Dist.

State v. Demido

35 Ohio App. 2d 9 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1973

The rules and regulations of the *10 state medical board governing limited practitioners of medicine was also stipulated. … Sections 4725.01 to 4725.14, inclusive, of the Revised Code do not apply: “(A) To physicians or surgeons practicing under authority of licenses issued under the laws of this state for the practice of medicine or surgery * * V

State v. Miller

47 Ohio App. 3d 113 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1988

State v. Brown (1981), 2 Ohio App. 3d 400 , 2 OBR 475, 442 N.E. 2d 475 . The first essential for the attachment of jeopardy is that the court seeking to act in the matter be of competent jurisdiction. State v.

P. J. Spitz Co. v. Warner & Swasey Co.

39 Ohio Law. Abs. 281 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 17, 1943

Boss v Alms & Doepke Co., 17 Oh Ap 314, was a case where the vice-president who had, because of failing health of the president, begun to take up the duties of that office and that the board acquiesced in matters done by … See also, Bradford Realty Co. v Gibson, 68 Oh St 442.

Elgin Loc. Sc. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Oapse

102 Ohio App. 3d 204 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 1995

An independent contractor may continue functions in a manner similar to the procedures outlined in Board Exhibit # 2." … Sigall v. Aetna Cleaning Contrs. of Cleveland, Inc. (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 308 , 74 O.O.2d 471 , 345 N.E.2d 61 , and Local 4501 v.

Alperin v. Feldman

14 Ohio Law. Abs. 723 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 22, 1933

At a later meeting, to-wit, on May 17, 1932, the Board of Directors of the Home was informed that Mr. … In Knox County Bank v Lloyd, 18 Oh St 363, the third paragraph of the syllabus reads: “A pleading in answer to a statement of fact constituting a cause of action, which merely denies that anything is due the adverse party

Crowley v. Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission

126 Ohio App. 3d 783 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1998

Miller v. Ohio Rehab. Serv. Comm. (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 701, 707 , 621 N.E.2d 437, 441-442 . … Mosholder v. Ohio Rehab. Serv. Comm. (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 134, 136 , 598 N.E.2d 1271, 1272 .

Police v. Industrial Commission

26 Ohio C.C. Dec. 408 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1915

This point has been settled, specifically, in State v. Creamer, 85 Ohio St. 349 [97 N. E. Rep. 602; 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 694], where the predecessor of the present law in question was under review. … We are next to consider what the plaintiff applied for when he came to the defendant board invoking its action.

Marra Constructors, Inc. v. Cleveland Metroparks System

82 Ohio App. 3d 557 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1993

Bd. of Edn. v. Findlay Edn. Assn., supra. … [Metroparks] to the Contractor [Marra], any subcontractor or any other party on any of the sums payable by the Board under this Contract, including, without limitation, the sums which the Board is authorized to retain pursuant

Hartzell Propeller, Inc. v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services

65 Ohio App. 3d 575 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 1989

Upon further appeal to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (“board”), the board affirmed the reconsidered decision of the administrator on May 17, 1988. … Makkas v. Unemployment Comp.

Mosholder v. Briae Hill Stone Co.

213 N.E.3d 226 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2023

Zimmerman v. … Browne v. Artex Oil Co., 158 Ohio St. 3d 398, 2019-Ohio-4809, 144 N.E.3d 378 (2019).

State v. Cosby, 2007ca0025 (5-9-2008)

2008 Ohio 2232 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 9, 2008

Defendant's appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 19 L.Ed.2d 493 , stating that she could find no meritorious issues for appellate review. … Penson v. Ohio (1988), 488 U.S. 75 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 . {¶ 4} Defendant's appellate counsel has raised two possible issues for appeal.

Kaiser Engineers, Inc. v. Limbach

70 Ohio App. 3d 550 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1990

The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals affirmed the commissioner's ruling. … Indeed, in Coca Cola Bottling Co. v.

Barker v. Kattelman

92 Ohio App. 3d 56 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1993

In Harvey v. Cincinnati Civ. Serv. … Dudukovich v. Housing Authority (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 202, 206-207 [ 12 O.O.3d 198, 201-202 , 389 N.E.2d 1113 ]; Cincinnati Bell v.

State, Ex Rel. Keeler v. Levine

19 Ohio App. 3d 113 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 1984

The pertinent portion of R.C. 124.56 follows: “When the state personnel board of review * * * has reason to believe that any officer, board, commission, head of a department, or person having the power of appointment, layoff … Methodist Book Concern, v. Guckenberger (1937), 57 Ohio App. 13, 16-17 [ 9 O.O. 30 ]. At its root, quasi-judicial power involves the hearing and determination of controversies. See State, ex rel. Arey, v.

State v. Annable

194 Ohio App. 3d 336 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2011

State v. … State v.

Reynolds v. Wingers, Inc.

86 Ohio App. 3d 742 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1993

of the Code of Regulations of Wingers, Inc. provides in pertinent part: “Each officer of the Corporation shall be elected by the Board of Directors, and shall hold office until the annual meeting of the Board of Directors … Schultz v. Barberton Glass Co. (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 131 , 4 OBR 376, 447 N.E.2d 109 . However, the Ohio Supreme Court has emphasized the necessity of the element of “seriousness” in cases raising such a claim. Paugh v.