Case law

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 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.

Burns v. Spitzer Management, Inc.

190 Ohio App. 3d 365 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2010

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the right to a class action. Shaver v. Std. Oil Co. (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 783 , 589 N.E.2d 1348 . … Additionally, a dealer may advertise a price that includes a deduction for a discount or rebate that all consumers qualify for, provided that such advertisement clearly discloses the deduction of such discount or rebate.”

State v. Jones

2019 Ohio 1772 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 9, 2019

However, the record establishes that appellant violated a condition of his bond in Case No. CR-18-624743-A when he failed to appear for his arraignment hearing on February 14, 2018. … In addition, the record establishes that in March 2018, appellant committed the offenses in Case No. CR-18- 627179-B while he was released from custody on bond in Case No. CR-18-624743-A.

City of Akron v. Hardgrove Enterprises, Inc.

47 Ohio App. 2d 196 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1973

Also, Robert Hardgrove could not qualify as an expert simply by checking many properties. His opinion that they were getting only “half as much” rents as they would pay elsewhere was clearly prejudicial. 5. … The fact that he bought a property and sold one as a result of urban renewal, is not sufficient to establish him as an expert. 10.

Dillow v. Young

3 Ohio App. 2d 110 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 1965

The argument as made draws no distinction between, on the one hand, opinions which are by persons who are not qualified or which are subject to other established grounds of objection, and, on the other hand, opinions which … Whether or not it might have been admissible, the lack of any supporting evidence made its exclusion clearly nonprejudicial in any event.

McCarter v. City of Cincinnati

3 Ohio App. 3d 244 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1981

Butler could not qualify until February 10, 1976, and Macdonald, not until March 10, 1976. Obviously, neither of them was qualified at the time of, or within sixty days after, Captain Stout’s retirement. … The position was clearly and unquestionably “established” by the city manager acting within the powers conferred on him by the City Charter.

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.

Lee v. Baldwin

35 Ohio App. 3d 47 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1987

In the course of direct and cross-examination, Ventre’s qualifications as a vehicular collision expert were sufficiently established. … The record clearly discloses the appellants’ timely objection to the opinion testimony of Officer Ventre. Upon the authority of Wheeler v.

Siders v. Reynoldsburg School District

99 Ohio App. 3d 173 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1994

Defendant further contends that the evidence clearly indicated that Siders was in violation of R.C. 4511.27(B). … that a political subdivision may assert regarding acts or omissions not protected under the general rule of immunity.

State v. Essa

194 Ohio App. 3d 208 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 26, 2011

Moreover, plain error does not exist unless the appellant establishes that the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different but for the trial court’s allegedly improper actions. State v. … held that police officers may qualify as expert witnesses where they possess specialized knowledge that will assist the fact-finder.

In Re S.G., 88523 (6-28-2007)

2007 Ohio 3271 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2007

issue which is to be established before them. … Without evidence establishing that he is not qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction, we cannot presume based upon the record before us that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence.

R.T. v. Knobeloch

2018 Ohio 2734 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 2018

Third, the journal entry or opinion of the certifying court must clearly set forth that rule of law which the certifying court contends is in conflict with the judgment on the same … Kaye did not have the necessary specialized knowledge to qualify as an expert under Evid.R. 702 to render standard of care opinions on the issues of whether Dr.

Vargas Pelaez v. Martinez Moreno

2025 Ohio 5532 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2025

(making findings relevant to U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) without remanding to juvenile court where evidence in the record “clearly establishe[d]” them).3 First, the following findings incorporate the juvenile … So too here, particularly because, as in In re A.M.A., the “uncontroverted evidence in the record clearly establishes” the requested findings. In re A.M.A. at ¶ 8. Over two years have passed since Ms.

State v. Montiero

189 Ohio App. 3d 655 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2010

to be a United States citizen in order to qualify as a juror. … Engel is not a United States citizen, a fact that was clearly and undisputedly revealed during voir dire.

In Re Estate of Natherson

102 Ohio App. 475 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 23, 1956

The claim of the appellees that they are qualified under Subsection (A) of §2117.07 R. … We may not by judicial determination extend the benefit of that provision beyond its clearly stated limitations.

Browning v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

151 Ohio App. 3d 798 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 2003

Staubus was qualified as an expert to testify about the course of drugs and alcohol in the human body, including how long the substances are stored in and how quickly they are eliminated from the human body. Dr. … She argues that proof of sexual harassment establishes a type of invasion of privacy recognized in Housh v.

Moore v. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation

73 Ohio App. 362 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1943

That the legislature did not intend to,confer a vested right that it could not affect by subsequent legislation is clearly stated in the act that was in force on August 11th, 1941, in §1345-30, GO, in which it is provided … that: “All the rights, privileges or immunities conferred by the act, or by acts done pursuant thereto, shall exist subject to the powers of the general assembly to amend or repeal this act at any time.”

State v. Brown

2014 Ohio 2878 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2014

He also indicated he requested immunity. During his interview with police, a detective discussed immunity with Holley before Holley was sent to appellant’s home wearing a wire. … Trial counsel was aware that an immunity deal had been made.

Bibee v. Gen. Revenue Corp.

2013 Ohio 1753 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 1, 2013

The trial granted summary judgment on the complaint in its entirety, concluding that she had failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. … Bibee could not qualify as disabled under federal or Ohio law. The trial court properly granted summary judgment to GRC.