Case law

State v. Norris

2023 Ohio 4057 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2023

The clear-and-convincing standard requires “a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. … II at 484-485. {¶ 15} Norris contends the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings.

Wentling v. David Motor Coach Ltd.

111 N.E.3d 610 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2018

Bolog on the basis of employer immunity under R.C. 4123.74. {¶30} The trial court, in the case sub judice, held that appellees were entitled to immunity under 4123.74. … with appellee David Motor Coach made them immune from liability under R.C. 4123.74.

Security Benefit Life Insurance v. Robinson

79 Ohio Law. Abs. 97 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 1958

It is conceded that prior to such organization it qualified as such. Sec. 3921.01, et seq, R. C., spells out quite clearly what the attributes of a fraternal benefit society must be in order to qualify as such. … As the plaintiff is claiming the benefit of the exemption to fraternal societies, the burden is upon it to clearly establish that it is such an organization.

First Fin. Bank, FSB v. Doellman

2013 Ohio 1383 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2013

According to the findings of the trial court, Norbert Doellman has "personal immunity from judgment on the note," pursuant to bankruptcy statutes. Therefore, judgment was entered on the note against Karen Doellman. … Doellmans also argued the magistrate was young and -7-  Butler CA2012-05-112 inexperienced, and therefore, not qualified

Kanjuka v. Metrohealth Medical Center

151 Ohio App. 3d 183 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2002

Regarding Qualified Privilege,’ that the qualified privilege could not apply as a matter of law, an error which was acknowledged at trial but not remedied by the trial judge, thereby precluding MetroHealth’s presentation … of a qualified privilege defense.” {¶ 41} Prior to trial, Judge Saffold ruled that qualified privilege would not be available to MetroHealth as a defense to Kanjuka’s complaint because Dr.

Lojek v. Lojek

2010 Ohio 5156 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2010

Furthermore, the trial court was clearly cognizant of the fact that Paul could have Washington App. … But the docket reflects that the trial court issued a qualified domestic relations order, and Wendy states in her brief “one [qualified domestic relations order] has been issued to divide this benefit, the Plan Administrator

MacDonald v. Shaker Hts. Income Tax Bd. of Rev.

2014 Ohio 708 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2014

At the time of his retirement, MacDonald was vice chairman of National City and he qualified for benefits under National City's qualified retirement plan and SERP. … Rather, we held that the BTA did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in finding that the MacDonalds satisfied their burden in establishing that the SERP benefit was a pension.

Willis & Linnen Co., L.P.A. v. Linnen

163 Ohio App. 3d 400 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2005

Therefore, we find that the trial court properly found that appellant could not establish each of the elements of the tort of abuse of process. … Appellant, therefore, cannot establish the elements of the tort of malicious prosecution.

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

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

may be asserted to establish nonliability: {¶ 27} "* * * {¶ 28} "(6) In addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section and in circumstances not covered by that division or sections 3314.07 … disregard of consequences, i.e. reasonable minds could conclude Defendants acted with malice or in bad faith, or acted in a wanton or reckless manner. {¶ 56} In its considered ruling on summary judgment, the trial court clearly

State ex rel Bryan v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. Bd. of Ohio

2016 Ohio 5802 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 2016

Id. {¶ 13} The Ohio General Assembly established STRS "to pay retirement allowances and other benefits of Ohio public school teachers." Pipoly at ¶ 13. … He clearly did not believe that she was disabled based on the history of fibromyalgia. He concluded that the difficulties she had with vocalization were medically unexplained.

Simpson v. Am. Internatl. Corp.

2014 Ohio 4840 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2014

In separate, lengthy orders addressing each summary judgment motion, the court found that Simpson had not rebutted the City’s immunity argument. … This sentence, standing only, without any curriculum vitae or statements as to what degrees, training and experience he has, if any, is insufficient pursuant to Evid.R. 702 to qualify [Simpson] as an expert

Linden v. Cincinnati Cyclones Hockey Club, L.P.

138 Ohio App. 3d 634 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2000

The issue for the Supreme Court of Ohio was whether MacGregor was the “employer” of Daniels for purposes of the immunity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. … He was clearly employed pursuant to a contract with the Florida-based Panthers, but the majority of his working time was spent in Ohio working under the direction of an Ohio employer.

Western Bank & Trust Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission

30 Ohio Law. Abs. 540 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 1939

However, we agree with the view of the plaintiff that it is immaterial what the phrase modifies because “instrumentality of the United States” cannot be qualified by any language of the Legislature. … The averments of the petition all go to the claims made by the plaintiff in the briefs, and they clearly would sustain the right to a declaratory judgment under §12102-1, GC.

Benlehr v. Shell Oil Co.

62 Ohio App. 2d 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1978

That would be questionable, sir, at the present time — how far you can say whether a man is qualified, sir. “Q. … But we do not believe we are required to await the problematical results of such an effort, particularly where the common law furnishes established analogues and parallels to the principle sought to be established.

Stiner v. Amazon.com, Inc.

120 N.E.3d 885 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2019

In Welch, the court concluded that the defendant—a consignee—qualified as a “supplier” under R.C. 2307.71 where it facilitated the sale of a machine to the plaintiff. … Furthermore, Stiner has not directed this Court to any evidence in the record to establish an essential element of Stiner’s products liability claims: that Amazon is a supplier.

Williams v. PNC Bank, N.A.

202 N.E.3d 753 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2022

The trial court had granted summary judgment to Oberlin on the basis of statutory political-subdivision immunity. Id. at ¶ 17. … The PNC Defendants clearly articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Williams.

Depugh v. Sladoje

111 Ohio App. 3d 675 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 1996

DePugh established that, as administrator of the estate, he was in privity with Burden as a beneficiary of the estate. … Landis’s motion to dismiss did not raise the county’s alleged immunity in support of the motion.

Scott v. Nameth

2016 Ohio 5532 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2016

The Scotts argued that "[t]he Magistrate erroneously found the exclusive method to establish a private qualified nuisance is by alleging physical discomfort" and, generally, that the magistrate erroneously found the Scotts … "An abuse of discretion may be found when the trial court 'applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact.' " PHH Mtge. Corp. v.

State v. Davis

64 Ohio App. 3d 334 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1989

Clearly, the total cumulative effect of this unwarranted and improper testimony severely prejudiced appellant. … Clearly, a proper foundation must be established prior to the admission of an expert opinion at trial.

Snider Crossing L.L.C. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Rev.

2025 Ohio 3189 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 2025

The BTA concluded that the BOE had properly established jurisdiction under R.C. 5715.19(A)(6) and that the March 2021 entity transfer constituted a qualifying sale under the statute's cross-referenced R.C. 5713.03. … sales. {¶ 86} The record here establishes that the March 2021 transaction possesses all the characteristics that the Supreme Court identified as supporting a finding of a qualifying sale in Palmer House.