Case law

Mulvey v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co.

98 N.E.3d 926 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2017

The policy sets clearly defined parameters for employee eligibility and scope of benefits. … GuideOne never established that it sent Mulvey the severance agreement and release. Therefore, Mulvey's not signing the release cannot be grounds at this time to deny severance.

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Chaney

19 Ohio App. 3d 277 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1984

This statute clearly prevents the ap-pellee from raising as a defense to payment on the note the defense that there existed an oral side agreement under which it was never intended that he should be personally liable on the … F.D.I.C. (1942), 315 U.S. 447 , the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice William Douglas, established two basic principles in cases involving the F.D.I.C.

Thompson v. Webb

136 Ohio App. 3d 79 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1999

fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” 1 After reviewing the challenged paragraphs, we conclude that Webb’s statements were clearly … . 6 Implicit in this defense is a commonality of interests between the speaker and the recipient, and a public or private duty, either legal or moral, to speak on the matter. 7 Thus, in order to establish a qualified privilege

State v. Castle

2016 Ohio 4974 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2016

The trial court’s finding in this respect, and its decision to impose a prison sentence on this basis, were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. … In our view, having weapons in a locked safe in the basement of a home (or, arguably, even at some other, unspecified location inside a home) two weeks after the offense does not establish that they were within Castle’

Nelson v. Bd., Park Commrs., Conneaut Tp., Unpublished Decision (12-28-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2001

What happened on July 15, 1997, in the waters of Lake Erie adjacent to Township Park was clearly a tragedy, but more importantly, it was a tragedy that could have been avoided. … Under a constitutional analysis, there simply must be an outside limit to governmental immunity under the recreational user statute. In this case, that line has been crossed.

Cleavenger v. B.O.

184 N.E.3d 968 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2022

Cleavenger’s allegation that B.O. testified falsely against him during his criminal trial, it is well established that individuals testifying in a judicial proceeding enjoy absolute immunity under Section 1983 in connection … As the Supreme Court of Ohio has explained: It is a well-established rule that judges, counsel, parties, and witnesses are absolutely immune from civil suits for defamatory remarks made during and

Culver v. City of Warren

84 Ohio App. 373 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1948

The defendants are the City of Warren, the duly elected, qualified and acting Mayor of the city, the duly appointed, qualified and acting Public Service and Safety Director of the city, the Superintendent of Parks, the Veterans … The order may further include an injunction against the defendants, the City of Warren, the duly elected, qualified and acting Mayor and the duly appointed, qualified and acting Public Service and Safety Director of the city

Kredel v. Austinwoods, 08 Ma 19 (9-26-2008)

2008 Ohio 5140 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2008

. {¶ 9} In order to establish a prima facia case of disability discrimination under R.C. Chapter 4112 or the ADA, Kredel must demonstrate, among other things, that she has a qualifying disability. … (Kredel Afft. ¶ 6). {¶ 26} These statements clearly supply different answers for the duration of these acts.

Meekins v. Oberlin

2019 Ohio 2825 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2019

established. … ‘“[O]bvious potential for such a violation’ has two elements: It must be obvious that the failure * * * will lead to certain conduct, and it must be obvious (i.e., clearly established) that the conduct will violate constitutional

State v. Ibrahim

2014 Ohio 666 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2014

Because appellant has not established plain error, his first assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 15} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him … We disagree. {¶ 16} This court reviews a trial court's sentence to determine if it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Green, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-934, 2011-Ohio-6451, ¶ 7, citing State v.

Gessner v. Schroeder, Unpublished Decision (2-9-2007)

2007 Ohio 570 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2007

If a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity: {¶ 33} "[T]he plaintiff must first identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated and second, establish that a reasonable officer … Thereafter, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant's conduct violated a right so clearly established that any official in his position would have clearly understood that he was under an affirmative

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

2024 Ohio 979 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2024

Additionally, Lolli claimed that she was immune from liability and that the claims against her in an official capacity were redundant. … To accomplish this, an employee is required to establish that they (1) are a member of a protected class; (2) were subject to an adverse employment decision; (3) were qualified for the position;

Bachmayer v. Toledo Board of Education

44 Ohio App. 3d 104 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 20, 1988

This immunity, and right to defense and indemnification, did not exist prior to the enactment of the Sovereign Immunity Law [R.C. 2744.07] in 1985. … Appellee claims that the evidence does not establish that he was insured at the time of the student’s injury.

Roberts v. Treasurer

147 Ohio App. 3d 403 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2001

We find that Roberts and Stump did not establish a vested right in the ITF and that the liability judgments against their employers alone did not establish such a vested right. {¶ 23} Roberts’s and Stump’s claimed right to … However, this is clearly not the case. Both did, indeed, obtain liability judgments against their respective employers. In Roberts’s case, a trial court found his employer, Rhodes, liable for an intentional tort.

Stachura v. Toledo

2022 Ohio 345 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2022

. {¶ 5} Thereafter, the individual defendants, Bell, Coleman, Metzger, and Wolever, moved for partial summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … immunity.

Kister v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Rev., 2007-A-0050 (12-21-2007)

2007 Ohio 6943 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2007

Thus, appellant qualified himself as an expert. … Appellant clearly used more than just the auditor's records to establish values.

Devan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision

2015 Ohio 4279 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2015

the process by which qualified individuals may obtain the tax reduction. … owned and occupied by a qualified applicant on January 1 of the relevant tax year.

Pratt v. Byers

41 Ohio App. 112 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 1931

The mere fact that the court characterized it as an explanation does not establish it as such if the effect of what was said did not amount to an explanation. … The limitation on the right of a court to modify, qualify, or explain was clearly all-inclusive, and reached every charge or instruction in waiting that the court may have given upon request of counsel.

State v. Bond

2022 Ohio 1487 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 5, 2022

To prevail under a plain error analysis, the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that, but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been different. State v. … more than one qualifying felony of the first or second degree, the qualifying felony of the first or second degree carrying the highest degree of felony of all the qualifying felonies of the first or second degree contained

Sprouse v. Eisenman, Unpublished Decision (2-8-2005)

2005 Ohio 463 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2005

We disagree. {¶ 11} Attorneys in Ohio enjoy a qualified immunity from liability to a third party arising out of acts he or she takes while representing a client. Hahn v. … Moffitt, supra, at ¶ 82, quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6 Ed. 1990) 956. {¶ 13} Appellants' complaint does not allege facts sufficient to overcome appellee's qualified immunity from third-party suits.