Case law

In Re T.G., Unpublished Decision (10-23-2006)

2006 Ohio 5504 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2006

In re Brown (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 193 , 198 . An abuse of discretion implies that the court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable, and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. … See, e.g., Hawley v. Ritley (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 157 , 159 ; State v. Steele, Butler App. No. CA2003-11-276, 2005-Ohio-943 , ¶ 128-32 ; State v. Watson (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 316 , 321-22 . {¶ 37} Judgment affirmed.

Cincinnati Camp Meeting Ass'n of the Methodist Episcopal Church v. Danby

74 Ohio App. 116 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1943

permission had upon application to this board in each particular case.” … Boone v Century Athletic Club, 49 Oh Ap 155. As was pointed out by the trial judge, the defendants have an effective remedy within their association.

Dineen v. Clevenger, Unpublished Decision (10-9-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 2002

Ohio courts have held that, like a corporate board of directors, a condominium board of managers "owe a duty of good faith in managing property held in common by a group of owners." … Worthinglen Condominium Unit Owner's Assn. v. Brown (1989), 57 Ohio App.3d 73 , 76 ; see, also, Kellog Commons Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Carlington (Mar. 18, 1994), 11th Dist.

Lake Cove Apts., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision

2024 Ohio 466 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2024

It is well established that “[a] party seeking an increase or decrease in valuation bears the burden of proof before a board of revision.” Snavely v. Erie Cty. … Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 90 Ohio St.3d 564, 566, 740 N.E.2d 276 (2001); see also Shinkle v. Ashtabula Cty.

Angus v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

39 Ohio App. 411 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 1929

See Chapman v. Weimer & Steinbacher, 4 Ohio St., 481 ; Coe v. Columbus, Piqua & Ind. Rd. Co., 10 Ohio St., 372 , 75 Am. Dec., 518 ; Francisco v. Ryan, 54 Ohio St., 307 , 43 N. E., 1045 , 56 Am. St. … Southern Surety Co., v. Schlesinger, 114 Ohio St., 323 , 151 N. E., 177 , 45 A. L. R., 371, and Amick v. Woodworth, 58 Ohio St., 86 , 50 N.

McHenry v. Cincinnati (Bd. of Ed.)

35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 473 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1921

That the board of education is such is clearly shown by See. 4749 6. … It may well be claimed that formerly the action of school boards was governmental only.

Mallett v. Cleveland Civ. Serv. Comm.

2015 Ohio 5140 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2015

The trial court must give due deference to the administrative resolution of evidentiary conflicts and must not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative board or agency.’” Martinez v. … Comm. v. Pietrick, 142 Ohio St.3d 495, 500, 2015-Ohio-495, 33 N.E.3d 18, quoting Chupka v. Saunders, 28 Ohio St.3d 325, 331, 504 N.E.2d 9 (1986) (Brown, J., concurring).

State v. McGee

2011 Ohio 1456 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2011

She seems to contend that such an explicit finding was necessary in order to sentence her to a jail term. {¶13} Appellant relies on Brown v. … Olmsted Tp. v. Riolo (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 114, 117, citing Smedley v.

First Rehab Funding, L.L.C. v. Milton

2025 Ohio 2677 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2025

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lundeen, 2020-Ohio-28, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), citing Miller v. Cardinal Care Mgmt., 2019-Ohio- 2826, ¶ 23 (8th Dist.). … Browning v. Browning, 2012-Ohio-2158, ¶ 38 (5th Dist.) “[T]he requirement that suits be brought by the real party in interest is a procedural requirement, not a jurisdictional requirement.” Hang-Fu v.

City of Cincinnati v. Rost

92 Ohio App. 8 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 1952

The principle announced in the first paragraph of the syllabus to Trumbull County Board of Education v. State, ex rel. Van Wye, 122 Ohio St., 247 , 171 N. E., 241 , is controlling. … It is: “Where power is given under the statutes to two different governmental boards to act with reference to the same subject matter, exclusive authority to act with reference to such subject matter is vested in the board

New Falls Corp. v. Russell-Seitz, 08ap-397 (12-11-2008)

2008 Ohio 6514 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2008

Koos v. Cent. Ohio Cellular, Inc. (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 579 , 588 , citing Brown v. Scioto *Page 4 Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 704 , 711 . … Maust v. Bank One Columbus, N.A. (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 103 , 107 ; Brown , at 711 . We must affirm the trial court's judgment if any of the grounds the movant raised in the trial court support the judgment.

Lincoln v. Olson

23 Ohio Law. Abs. 613 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 1936

Such appeal shall be taken within ten days from the date of such removal, and the decision of the board of appeals shall be final.” The appellant promptly and within due time perfected an appeal to the board of appeals. … and endorses the opinion of the Common Pleas Court as a correct determination of the issues in this case, to which nothing perhaps can be profitably added, citing only the following: Hornberger, Director of Public Service v

Elliott-Thomas v. Smith

2017 Ohio 702 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2017

Attorneys Smith and Hirt represented the Warren City School District, its Board of Education, and its five board members in the initial wrongful termination case. … Blakemore v.

Suburban Inn, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.

2014 Ohio 4355 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2014

BROWN, J. {¶ 1} This is an appeal by appellant, Suburban Inn, Inc. … In Nasser v.

Sharpe v. Sharpe

85 Ohio App. 3d 638 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1993

In Pennsylvania v. … Renfro v. Cuyahoga Cty.

Thomas v. Dayton Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn.

2018 Ohio 4231 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 2018

Jones v. Franklin Cty. Sheriff (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 40, 43, 555 N.E.2d 940, 944, citing Aldridge, 38 Ohio St.3d at 157, 527 N.E.2d at 293; Graziano v. … Turner v. Cent. Local School Dist. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 95, 99, 706 N.E.2d 1261. Englewood v.

State v. Truckey

130 N.E.3d 990 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2019

Detective Jeff Brown explained to the jury while the body camera video concealed by Mr. Truckey was considered evidence. Mr. … See Salem v.

Hobbs v. Pickaway-Ross Career & Technology Ctr. Bd. of Edn.

2022 Ohio 921 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2022

HOBB’S EMPLOYMENT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD OF REVIEW {¶9} “R.C. 3319.081 governs the termination of non-teaching employees of a local school board.” Durham v. Pike Cty. … Highland No. 12CA19, 2013-Ohio-2112, ¶ 11, citing Benincasa v. Stark County Board of MRDD, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2003CA00350, 2004-Ohio-4941, ¶ 19, citing Doll v. Stark County Board of MRDD, 5th Dist.

State v. Jolly, 22811 (12-12-2008)

2008 Ohio 6547 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2008

Mapp v. … State v.

Bowes v. Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum, Inc.

12 Ohio App. 3d 12 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1983

In Schaefer v. D. & J. … Columbus Finance v. Howard, supra, at page 184; Rubeck v.