Case law

In re Anderson

2013 Ohio 2012 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 17, 2013

In our view, the record clearly establishes that he has gone to great lengths to provide for Lee Rose’s care and maintenance. … As well qualified as Webber may be, the record establishes that Joseph, her son, has been handling the estate of Lee Rose since 2007 when he assumed full responsibility for her care and support.

Bethel v. Dunipace

57 Ohio App. 3d 89 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1988

The sheriff here, having “* * * acted precisely in accordance with the instructions contained in the writ committed to him, which on its face, was unimpeachable * * *,” should therefore be “* * * immune from liability for … In addition to being unworkable in practice, I believe this decision runs contrary to prudent and well-established policy considerations, expressed in the Wholesale Electric decision as follows: “ ‘Before executing process

Wagner v. Allied Steel & Tractor Co.

105 Ohio App. 3d 611 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 1995

We find that Wagner went forward with enough evidence to show he was qualified for his job at Allied. … Company policy clearly provided for termination of any employee for fighting.

Skorvanek v. Dept. of Rehab & Corr.

2018 Ohio 3870 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2018

reviewed Creech's prison disciplinary record dating back to the early 1980s, and observed that the only two instances of violence in Creech's record were "remote in time—by more than ten years—from the attack on plaintiff and clearly … As such, ODRC had a qualified privilege to provide Creech's mental health record to its attorney. See Wilson v.

Binsara, L.L.C.. v. Bolog

2019 Ohio 4040 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2019

DESPITE THIS FACT, THE TRIAL COURT RULED THAT THIS CLEARLY VOIDED THE AGREEMENT WAS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE APPELLANTS.” … Shareholders, however, do not hold an absolute immunity from liability for the actions of their corporations. Id. at ¶ 17.

Bolin v. White

51 Ohio App. 2d 92 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 1976

Plaintiffs contend that the state has waived its sovereign immunity from suits over which it had not previously given its consent to be sued by enacting B. … Clearly, no provision has been made for judicial review of the welfare questions set forth in that section.

Moore v. Burt

96 Ohio App. 3d 520 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 1994

Finally, SEMC argues that the lack of statutory immunity violates due process. … The court in Albain and Browning clearly indicated that the proper remedy in such instances is an action for negligent credentialing.

Rose v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

173 Ohio App. 3d 767 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2007

has not challenged the *772 trial court’s ruling that his defamation claims are barred by the statute of limitations or that his conspiracy claims do not survive. {¶ 15} The law governing motions for summary judgment is clearly … However, it is well established that the common pleas courts of the state of Ohio are the appropriate forums for *775 such actions and that such claims are not actionable in Court of Claims. Howard v.

Bowman v. Williams

2013 Ohio 1790 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 2, 2013

Williams testified that this dog has received its required immunizations.  {¶12} The defendants elected to present evidence. Williams testified that after the dog ran toward Bowman, she asked if she was okay. … The court explained: Ohio courts have held that “[a]ffidavits are not generally admissible over objection at the trial to establish facts material to the issue being tried.” Natl. City Bank v.

Summit Villa Care Center, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Health

81 Ohio App. 3d 761 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 1992

While appellant’s application was filed within a year from that date, clearly Ohio Adm.Code 3701-12-232(E) mandates that the director shall not approve the application if, at the time his decision is made, the transferring … On the contrary, Ohio Adm.Code 3701-12-01(F), the provision expressly made applicable to this question, clearly states in the conjunctive that an “existing health care facility” is one which (1) is licensed or otherwise approved

Lackey v. Noble

2012 Ohio 2554 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2012

Under Section 2744.03(A)(6), a political subdivision employee “is immune from liability unless . . . … The Supreme Court clearly was aware of Hawkins’ continued vitality as it quoted the opinion in Fabrey. Fabrey constitutes the Court’s more recent pronouncement on the meaning of the term “wanton.” See also Rankin v.

Daily Monument Co. v. Crown Hill Cemetery Ass'n

114 Ohio App. 143 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 1961

As quoted from the amended charter of Crown Hill Cemetery Association, the right to deal in the sale of grave memorials is clearly and completely spelled out. … The rules applicable here are clearly expressed in the case of Nelson Radio & Supply Co., Inc., v.

DiCuccio v. Lindsmith

2018 Ohio 2320 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2018

DISCUSSION {¶ 26} Appellant argues that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees against him because such imposition was contrary to law because (1) the record plainly establishes that the common pleas case … To establish a cause of action for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must show, among other things, that the attorney owed a duty or obligation to the plaintiff. Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997), syllabus.

State v. Gutierrez-Reynoso

2023 Ohio 3122 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2023

Gutierrez, the state did not establish he restrained M.R.’s liberty. … Gutierrez concedes the evidence established he took M.R.’s car keys.

Young-Hatten v. Taylor, 08ap-511 (3-17-2009)

2009 Ohio 1185 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2009

"A standard of proof that requires a plaintiff to prove to a virtual certainty that, but for the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying action, in effect immunizes most negligent attorneys … and the present case is about a lost opportunity to pursue a claim. {¶ 23} It is true that the court in Environmental Network appears to draw a distinction between situations in which the underlying claim or defense is clearly

State v. Cedeno-Guerrero

2019 Ohio 4580 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2019

In this case, Cedeno-Guerrero has failed to establish how he was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to certify the interpreter’s credentials. … was not qualified).

Meier v. Frank Mashuda Co.

83 Ohio Law. Abs. 210 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 7, 1959

With this contention we do not agree, although certain portions of the petition could have more clearly set forth the issues. … In such a situation, Mashuda was not entitled, as a matter of law, to the immunity it seeks herein.

Romig v. Baker Hi-Way Express, Inc.

2012 Ohio 321 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2012

s injuries unless the clause expressly states that the immunity is waived. … undertaking. {¶ 73} Worthington and its amicus curiae, Transportation & Logistics, Inc., argue decedent had a duty to inspect the cargo, and, if and when he did so, the overhang of the fourth cradle was clearly

Starkey v. Cho

69 Ohio App. 3d 763 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 1990

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit was clearly brought within the two-year statute of limitations from the time this action accrued on May 26, 1986, when plaintiffs’ suffered their injuries. … ODNR established a system whereby changes or modifications would be made to an area once it was brought to its attention that there was a particular problem in the park.

First Presbyterian Church v. Tarr

63 Ohio App. 286 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 1939

conditions subsequent to conditions precedent and, in a case of doubt as to the testator’s intention, will construe a condition to be subsequent rather than precedent where it is possible to do so without violating some established-rule … In other words the fee conveyed was deemed a qualified one determinable upon the cessation of the specified use.