Case law

State v. Collmar

2013 Ohio 1766 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 1, 2013

. {¶3} The State and Collmar engaged in Crim.R. 11 plea negotiations and the parties appeared to have reached an agreement contingent on his qualifying for participation in the domestic violence court’s intensive … The record does not contain any  2 information regarding the results of Collmar’s screening or whether or not he was qualified to participate in the domestic violence court

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.

State v. Clifton

65 Ohio App. 3d 117 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 1989

Fourth Assignment of Error: “The trial court erred in imposing sentence for felony theft and in establishing the amount of restitution.” … Appellant’s fourth assignment of error takes issue with the amount of restitution established by the trial court.

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.

In re A.B.C.

2011 Ohio 6570 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2011

She indicated that appellants have kept the child up to date with his immunizations. Dr. Rawal detailed A.B.C.'s medical history, including a diagnosis of allergic colitis. … The complaint also clearly stated, inter alia, the essential language of R.C. 2151.04(C). {¶33} We thus find no merit in appellants’ argument in this regard.

Martcheva v. Dayton Bd. of Edn.

179 N.E.3d 687 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 2021

. {¶ 25} Second, Martcheva has not established the damages amount with certainty. … Absent direct evidence establishing retaliation, however, “an inference of retaliation may be reached after engaging in the burden shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas [Corp. v.

Bautista v. Kettering Health

2025 Ohio 674 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2025

This is not to say that the court cannot fashion other appropriate sanctions against an offending party, but “all documents within a peer review committee’s own records – regardless of the source – are absolutely immune … and establish the criteria by which the motion should be judged.”

Buckeye Retirement Co., L.L.C., Ltd. v. Busch

2017 Ohio 4009 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 26, 2017

immunity for his legal advice. … As was noted, the magistrate applied qualified immunity, which prevents lawsuits against attorneys unless a party is in privity with the attorney.

State v. Peltier

2019 Ohio 569 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2019

Specifically, counsel suggests that Peltier’s trial counsel was ineffective in failing to avoid the aggravated possession of drugs charge by asserting immunity under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b). … is based is obtained as the result of the “qualified individual” experiencing an overdose and needing medical assistance.

Hopkins v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.

2026 Ohio 936 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2026

GCRTA has not cited any cases establishing it can leverage R.C. 2744.03(A)(3) or (A)(5) to restore immunity in a case alleging driver negligence. … We acknowledge the line of cases holding that a transit vehicle’s unusually sudden and violent stop may not qualify as negligence because of exigent circumstances.

Davis v. City of Cleveland, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2004)

2004 Ohio 6621 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 2004

Alternatively, Smith contended that the City acted in "bad faith and with a "reckless disregard" for her rights, apparently referencing the defenses and immunities set forth in R.C. 2744.03 . {¶ 34} Although it is well established … that R.C. 2744.03 merely provides defenses to liability in the event an exception to immunity under R.C. 2744.02 (B) applies and may not be used to establish liability in and of itself, 4 we find that R.C.

State v. Caldwell

44 Ohio Law. Abs. 579 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1943

The testimony of the prosecuting witness, if true,' clearly established the guilt of the defendant of the offense "charged which, although alleged to be acting in a way tending to contribute to the delinquency of a minor, … It is made part of the bill of exceptions without further designation than the following: “Thereupon the court charged the jury as follows:” This does not establish that the court was then reading from a written charge.

Moore v. Honican

194 Ohio App. 3d 135 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 4, 2011

fact with respect to Honican’s alleged wanton or willful misconduct. {¶ 23} Moore presented evidence that his disabled pickup truck had been clearly visible for up to one-half mile before Honican had struck it with his cruiser … The absence of skid marks or other evidence of evasive action established that Honican had not taken notice of Moore’s truck at any point prior to the impact. {¶ 24} And while there was no official policy concerning the use

Kish v. Withers

123 Ohio App. 3d 132 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1997

The evidence at trial established that at the time of the accident, it was dusk and was raining lightly. … Appellee maintains that the testimony of the witnesses, as stated above, clearly established that his tractor-trailer was a reasonably discernible object in the roadway.

Gaumont v. Emery Air Freight Corp.

61 Ohio App. 3d 277 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 1989

Cox argued that such a remark made in a judicial proceeding is accorded absolute immunity. … are within the doctrine of qualified privilege.

Wall v. Ohio Permanente Medical Group, Inc.

119 Ohio App. 3d 654 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1997

Luke’s Defendants to provide discovery after appellant demonstrated sufficient malice to defeat the defense of qualified privilege. … To overcome the qualified privilege for peer review materials under R.C. 2305.251, the party seeking relief must present clear and convincing evidence that defendants acted with actual malice. Jacobs v.

McPeek v. Leetonia Italian-American Club

174 Ohio App. 3d 380 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2007

The club established that any statements made about the disciplinary action were communicated only to other club members. Appellant presented no evidence to dispute this. … Appellant clearly does not agree with the outcome of the hearing, but there is no indication of recklessness, or even negligence, in the process of imposing a sanction on him for disobeying club rules. {¶ 27} There is no

Turner v. Children's Hospital, Inc.

76 Ohio App. 3d 541 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1991

In Ohio, proof of DPT immunization pursuant to a schedule of inoculations established by public health authorities is required before a child can attend school. R.C. 3313.671(A). … Hence, immunization was not automatic or prescribed by law, as plaintiffs maintain. Rather, plaintiffs’ choice to inoculate arose when the prescribing physician, Dr. Pappas, proceeded to immunize.

Mahle Behr Dayton, L.L.C. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.

2021 Ohio 145 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2021

The statutory waiver of immunity is broad: “The state hereby waives its immunity from liability * * * and consents to be sued, and have its liability determined, in the court of claims created in this chapter in accordance … “It is inconceivable,” the Court said, “how money belonging to Cleveland could ‘clearly be traced to particular funds or property’ in the BWC’s possession.” Id. at ¶ 17, quoting Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v.

State v. Strickland, 06ap-1269 (3-13-2008)

2008 Ohio 1104 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2008

*Page 14 {¶ 29} On appeal, the appellate court concluded: * * * The record clearly establishes the defense requested a mistrial. … Hoffner , 102 Ohio St.3d 358 , 2004-Ohio-3430 , ¶ 45 (holding that "[t]he scope of cross-examination clearly falls within the ambit of trial strategy, and debatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance of