Case law

Wise v. Connell

10 Ohio App. 14 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1917

Co. v. Brown, 14 Kans., 447 ; The A., T. & S. F. Rd. Co. v. McConnell et al., 25 Kans., 370 , and Bell et al. v. Maish, Treas., et al., 137 Ind., 226 . The judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed.

Hocking Power Co. v. Jackson city

8 Ohio Law. Abs. 448 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 20, 1930

When an assessing board has made an assessment there is a presumption in favor of its validity. … Price v. Toledo, 25 C. C. 617, 4 C. C. (n.s.) 57 and other cases. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the assessment exceeds the benefits. Yost v. Railway Co., 2 O. C. C. (n.s.) 519, Prentice v.

Kraus v. Cleveland (City)

76 Ohio Law. Abs. 214 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 1954

“Resolved, by the Board of Control of the Cty of Cleveland, that the bid of The John N. … (Emphasis oursj Also by the statement of the Supreme Court of Ohio, in State Board of Health, et al., v.

Willow Grove, Ltd. v. Olmsted Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals

2021 Ohio 2510 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2021

Chapter 2506 governs appeals of administrative decisions to include boards of zoning appeals. Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 141 Ohio St.3d 318, 2014-Ohio-4809, 23 N.E.3d 1161, ¶ 22. … An appeal of a zoning board decision is limited to questions of law.

Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. Williams

180 Ohio App. 3d 239 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2008

Koos v. Cent. Ohio Cellular, Inc. (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 579, 588 , 641 N.E.2d 265 , citing Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711 , 622 N.E.2d 1153 . … Maust v. Bank One Columbus, N.A. (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 103, 107 , 614 N.E.2d 765 ; Brown at 711, 622 N.E.2d 1153 .

State ex rel. Kirkpatrick v. Madison Twp.

2025 Ohio 5591 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2025

Kirkpatrick filed the referendum petition with the Pickaway County Board of Elections. … Corp. v. Columbia Gas.

State v. McCoy

2020 Ohio 4511 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2020

State v. Haller, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-11-34, 2012-Ohio-5233, ¶ 9, quoting State v. … (Id. at 211-213). {¶29} Lieutenant Ed Brown (“Lieutenant Brown”), an officer with the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, testified that on the evening of December 15, 2017 he was dispatched to 626 Park Street to take

McFarland v. Richland Cty. Children Svcs., Unpublished Decision (7-7-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2003

The magistrate found appellant was fifteen years old and a dependent child in the custody of Children's Services Board at the time she gave birth to the minor child. … Appellant argues Children's Services Board did not provide reasonable case planning and diligent efforts to assist her to remedy her problems, because the case plan Children's Services Board wrote required appellant to comply

Grissinger v. Village, Lagrange Zoning Bd., Unpublished Decision (3-14-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2001

Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trustees (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 608 , 613 , quoting Kisil v. Sandusky (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 30 , 34 . In making this determination, we apply an abuse of discretion standard. Nauth v. … Andres v. Perrysburg (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 51 , 55 , citing Colgate v. Harvey (1935), 296 U.S. 404 , 422-23 . The equal protection guarantee only prevents invidious discrimination. Norvell v.

Kermit Chapman & Sons, Inc. v. Lindley

60 Ohio App. 2d 233 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 1977

Benken v. … In Benken, the Board of Tax Appeal’s definition of “agriculture,” given tacit approval in Yoder Bros. v.

Strickler v. Courtright

63 Ohio App. 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 1939

See Woman’s Union Missionary Soc. v. Mead, 131 Ill., 338 , 23 N. E., 603 ; and the note appearing in 94 A. L. R., 26, particularly pages 79, 82, 83 and 88 et seq. It has found recognition in McCormick, Admr., v. … Townsend’s Exrs. v. Townsend, 25 Ohio St., 477 ; and Williams, Admr., v. Black, 42 Ohio App., 423 , 182 N. E., 351 .

Beckett v. Tax Commr.

7 Ohio App. 2d 181 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1965

Under the circumstances, the case is readily distinguishable from that of Taylor v. Peck, Tax Commr., 160 Ohio St. 288 , upon which appellants rely in seeking the cancellation of the tax assessment. … Under the circumstances, the rule pronounced in Taylor v.

Webster v. Altenloh Brinck & Co., U.S., Inc.

169 N.E.3d 963 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2021

Popovich is board certified in occupational and environmental medicine. … the brain was jarred”); State v. Purdon, 12th Dist. Brown No.

Holt v. City of Cincinnati

4 Ohio App. 2d 119 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 25, 1964

See, also, in this respect, Eversole v. City of Columbus, 169 Ohio St. 205 (an arts and crafts center). See, also, Hyde v. City of Lakewood, 175 N. … The case of Wolf v.

In Re Shott

75 Ohio App. 3d 270 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1991

In so holding, wé find ourselves in agreement with the Sixth Appellate District in Andrzejewski v. Ohio Dept. of Health (Oct. 29, 1982), Lucas App. No. L-82-163, unreported, 1982 WL 6711 . … The above statute does not give a juvenile court the authority to award custody of a dependent child to a mental health board, absent the board’s request.

Beck v. Young, Admr.

119 Ohio App. 109 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 8, 1963

Language from Ott v. Industrial Commission, 83 Ohio App., 13, approved and followed. We find no error prejudicial to the rights of the defendant, and the judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed. … Brown, P. J., Donahue and Griffith, JJ., concur.

1415 Kenilworth, L.L.C. v. Cleveland

2023 Ohio 300 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2023

A board’s decision to deny a variance is accorded a presumption of validity and the burden of demonstrating the decision’s invalidity rests with the contesting party. Consol. Mgt., Inc. v. … Barry v. Bay Village, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104999, 2017-Ohio- 7244, ¶ 20, citing Phillips v. Westlake Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92051, 2009-Ohio-2489, ¶ 54, citing Stickelman v.

Sanicky v. Ruggles Township B.Z.A., Unpublished Decision (6-16-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2003

I do agree however, the trial court erred when it determined it would not consider de novo evidence of undue hardship because such evidence was not presented at the hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals.

State ex rel. Hemphill v. Ohio State Emp. Relations Bd.

2022 Ohio 2299 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2022

Union, Dist. 925 v. State Emp. … Hall v. State Emp.

State v. Kepler

2015 Ohio 3291 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2015

Crawford v. … Id., quoting State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.3d 332. {¶15} Based upon our decision in State v.