Case law

Anderson v. Bright Horizons Children's Ctrs., L.L.C.

2022 Ohio 1031 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2022

Both Anderson and Anderson's mother had informed Delaney that Anderson’s congenital heart defect adversely affected her immune system. … Consequently, we will not address whether the evidence establishes pretext.

Greenlee v. Richart

2025 Ohio 2540 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2025

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN THIS REGARD, AND COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW BY FINDING THAT PEREZ HAD ESTABLISHED HIS DEFENSE OF QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AS PEREZ’S TESTIMONY AND … They further claim the trial court erred in finding that Perez’s statements to law enforcement were protected by the defense of qualified privilege. {¶ 39} “Qualified privilege is an affirmative defense to a defamation

Northeast Ohio Emergency Affiliates v. Ohio State Medical Board

93 Ohio App. 3d 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1994

She said that the house physicians in question qualify as consulting staff under those bylaws and as such do not have admitting privileges. … It cannot be concluded that the house physician would be immune from suit just because the admitting physician grants the house physician authority to engage only in emergency procedures.

Horner v. Tarleton

215 N.E.3d 734 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 30, 2023

food when she is with Father, and that Father does not take her to the doctor for regular check-ups. {¶23} The testimony reflects that both Mother and Father agreed to wait until B.H. was older, had built up an immune … Therefore, we agree with Father that the trial court’s only obligation in this case was to establish a new support order, not modify support, because the language in the 2018 agreed judgment entry does not qualify as a

State v. Davis

2022 Ohio 1900 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2022

An error qualifies as “plain error” only if it is obvious and but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding clearly would have been otherwise. State v. Barnhart, 3d Dist. … Appellant has not established ineffective assistance of trial counsel and his second assignment of error is overruled.

J. P. Sand & Gravel Co. v. State

51 Ohio App. 2d 83 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1976

director of transportation rather wide authority in the planning process for the state highway system, in pertinent part, is as follows: * * Any changes made in existing highways by the •director or any additional highways established … Clearly, E. C. Chapters 163 and 5519 provide a method by which *89 damages may he recoverable from the state of Ohio for the taking of private property.

State v. Hill

59 Ohio App. 3d 31 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 1989

physicians or other qualified persons not to exceed three, to be selected by the court and under such restrictions or directions as the court or judge deems proper. … In cases where exclusion is established, the results of the tests together with the findings of the experts of the fact of nonpaternity are receivable in evidence.

Miller v. Erie Ins. Co., 5-07-36 (2-11-2008)

2008 Ohio 515 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2008

The UM/UIM endorsement contains a section clearly identified as "Limitations of Protection." … However, it is well-established in Ohio that where two clauses of a contract appear to be inconsistent, the specific clause prevails over the general. Gibbons-Grable Co. v. Gilbane Bldg.

Eastman v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv.

67 Ohio App. 3d 318 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1990

"Abuse of discretion" implies a decision without reasonable basis, one which is clearly wrong, not merely an error of judgment. Id. The facts of the case sub judice are undisputed. … That court determined that the payment of vacation pay after a period of layoff established a new separation date for purposes of determining eligibility for Trade Act benefits.

State v. Benson

2019 Ohio 4635 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2019

Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231, 2016- Ohio-1002, ¶ 1, an appellate court may vacate or modify a sentence that is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, or is clearly and convincingly not supported by the record … agency, and establish an intervention plan for the offender.

Schwartz v. O'Brien

2014 Ohio 4813 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2014

Jinks clearly established that he was sufficiently familiar with the operation of the business and that he had personal knowledge of the record-keeping system Glacial used to pay commissions and salaries to its employees … Jinks established that Mr.

Herrara v. Chung

2021 Ohio 1728 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 20, 2021

This court has “cautioned that a de facto date should not be used unless the ‘evidence clearly and bilaterally shows that it is appropriate based upon the totality of the circumstances.’” Brown v. … Husband contends that he “clearly showed that [Wife] received $115,941.38 in April 2016, during the parties’ marriage, from the sale of property.” We disagree.

Johnson v. ContiTech USA, Inc.

2022 Ohio 1552 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 9, 2022

Clearly, the thoughts “pop into my head” reference intrusive memories of her traumatic injury. … For Armstrong’s PTSD to qualify as a compensable injury under R.C. 4123.01(C)(1), however, more is required; he must establish that his PTSD was causally related to his compensable physical injuries

Buckingham v. Buckingham

113 N.E.3d 1061 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 25, 2018

Id. {¶ 53} “Ohio law clearly establishes that a judgment may be interpreted if it is ambiguous. … But the term “qualified” is a misnomer.

State v. Donaldson

2023 Ohio 234 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2023

However, the prosecutor for the county in which most offenses were committed gave her immunity and did not criminally charge her. … engaged in corrupt acts with Donaldson and was an accomplice in association with him for purposes of establishing an enterprise.

Stinnett v. Lutzweit, Unpublished Decision (9-27-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2002

However, if there is a factual dispute "on which the question of immunity turns, `such that it cannot be determined before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights,'" summary judgment on … the issue of qualified immunity should not be granted.

State Ex Rel. Spencer v. Montgomery County Board of Elections

102 Ohio App. 51 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 1956

The court will not issue a writ of mandamus against an official ordering him to perform an act except where the duty is clearly enjoined by law. *54 We consider the issue presented with this well-established legal principle … This requirement is clearly expressed, and the duty to provide these compartments at every election and in every polling place is clearly enjoined.

Adam v. Bath Township Board of Zoning Appeals

121 Ohio App. 3d 645 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 1997

under the evidence presented, the decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals, both with respect to its determination that Nextel failed to prove that it was a public utility, as well as its denial of a zoning variance, were clearly … The board asserts the common pleas court erred when it determined that the board’s decision that Nextel failed to establish that it qualifies as a public utility under R.C. 519.211(A) was not supported by the preponderance

Traditions Tavern v. City of Columbus

171 Ohio App. 3d 383 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2006

Thus, even if R.C. 3791.031 qualifies as a general law regulating indoor smoking, we could not find that the Columbus smoking ban is in conflict with the statute. {¶ 18} Under Ohio law, the concept of what constitutes a conflict … , the legislature indicated not that these establishments were immune to smoking-related regulation, but that they simply did not fall within ■ the ambit of the statute.

Snider v. Youngstown

27 Ohio Law. Abs. 231 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 1938

When acting in a proprietary capacity a municipal corporation has divested itself of immunity from liability as a branch of government and it may no longer bring itself within the theory upon which the government is immune … In that case the Cuyahoga county Court of Appeals very clearly recognized that the city, in the performance of a governmental function, was not liable for common-law negligence not involving nuisance, but as clearly recognized