guiding principle in Ohio

2021“It is premised on a guiding principle of statutory construction: that when the General Assembly enacts a statute, it does not intend to produce an absurd result.” Id., citing R.C. 1.47(C); see Chahdi v. Elhassan, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-674, 2019- Ohio-4472, ¶ 21 (“[B]ecause the General Assembly intends just and reasonable results when enacting statutes, courts must * * * construe statutes to avoid unreasonable or absurd consequences.”). {¶22} However, “‘[t]he absurd-result exception to the plain-meaning rule of [statutory] construction’ applies ‘only [to] those cases in which the plain

2021“It is premised on a guiding principle of statutory construction: that when the General Assembly enacts a statute, it does not intend to produce an absurd result.” Id., citing R.C. 1.47(C).

2020“As R.C. 3109.04 makes clear, the guiding principle in a custody matter is the best interest of the child.” In re M.S., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99563, 2013-Ohio-4043, ¶ 21 .

2020“As R.C. 3109.04 makes clear, the guiding principle in a custody matter is the best interest of the child.” In re M.S., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99563, 2013-Ohio-4043, ¶ 21 .

2009Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77 , 79-80 , 461 N.E.2d 1273 ; Parma Park W.

2009Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77 , 79-80 , 461 N.E.2d 1273 ; Parma Park W.

1997“The guiding principle in * * * all our disciplinary proceedings * * * is the public interest and an attorney’s right to continue to practice a profession imbued with public trust.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 372 , 667 N.E.2d 1186, 1188-1189 .

1997“The guiding principle in * * * all our disciplinary proceedings * * * is the public interest and an attorney’s right to continue to practice a profession imbued with public trust.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 372 , 667 N.E.2d 1186, 1188-1189 .

1993Schultz, v. Bd. of Elections (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 173 [ 2 O.O.3d 372 , 357 N.E.2d 1079 ] (including a resolution in its entirety when only a part of it was intended to be submitted to the electorate was held to be a fatal defect); Markus v. Bd. of Elections (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 197 [ 51 O.O.2d 277 , 259 N.E.2d 501 ] (setting forth the guiding principle that the text of a ballot statement originating with a referendum petition must fairly and accurately present the issue to be decided).” Nunneker v. Murdock (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 73, 77 , 9 OBR 93, 97, 458 N.E.2d 431, 436 .

1993Schultz, v. Bd. of Elections (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 173 [ 2 O.O.3d 372 , 357 N.E.2d 1079 ] (including a resolution in its entirety when only a part of it was intended to be submitted to the electorate was held to be a fatal defect); Markus v. Bd. of Elections (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 197 [ 51 O.O.2d 277 , 259 N.E.2d 501 ] (setting forth the guiding principle that the text of a ballot statement originating with a referendum petition must fairly and accurately present the issue to be decided).” Nunneker v. Murdock (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 73, 77 , 9 OBR 93, 97, 458 N.E.2d 431, 436 .

1993Schultz, v. Bd. of Elections (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 173 [ 2 O.O.3d 372 , 357 N.E.2d 1079 ] (including a resolution in its entirety when only a part of it was intended to be submitted to the electorate was held to be a fatal defect); Markus v. Bd. of Elections (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 197 [ 51 O.O.2d 277 , 259 N.E.2d 501 ] (setting forth the guiding principle that the text of a ballot statement originating with a referendum petition must fairly and accurately present the issue to be decided).” Nunneker v. Murdock (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 73, 77 , 9 OBR 93, 97, 458 N.E.2d 431, 436 .

1993Schultz, v. Bd. of Elections (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 173 [ 2 O.O.3d 372 , 357 N.E.2d 1079 ] (including a resolution in its entirety when only a part of it was intended to be submitted to the electorate was held to be a fatal defect); Markus v. Bd. of Elections (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 197 [ 51 O.O.2d 277 , 259 N.E.2d 501 ] (setting forth the guiding principle that the text of a ballot statement originating with a referendum petition must fairly and accurately present the issue to be decided).” Nunneker v. Murdock (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 73, 77 , 9 OBR 93, 97, 458 N.E.2d 431, 436 .

2023In Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 , 98 S.Ct. 2170 , 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978), the Ohio Supreme Court observed: That “ ‘(a) verdict of acquittal . . . (may) not be reviewed . . . without putting (the defendant) twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution,’ ” has recently been described as “the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence.” United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., (Supra 430 U.S. at 571, 97 S.Ct. 1349 ), Quoting United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671 , 16 S.Ct. 1192 , 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896).

2023In Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 , 98 S.Ct. 2170 , 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978), the Ohio Supreme Court observed: That “ ‘(a) verdict of acquittal . . . (may) not be reviewed . . . without putting (the defendant) twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution,’ ” has recently been described as “the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence.” United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., (Supra 430 U.S. at 571, 97 S.Ct. 1349 ), Quoting United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671 , 16 S.Ct. 1192 , 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896).

2023In Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 , 98 S.Ct. 2170 , 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978), the Ohio Supreme Court observed: That “ ‘(a) verdict of acquittal . . . (may) not be reviewed . . . without putting (the defendant) twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution,’ ” has recently been described as “the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence.” United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., (Supra 430 U.S. at 571, 97 S.Ct. 1349 ), Quoting United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671 , 16 S.Ct. 1192 , 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896).

2023In assessing whether a criminal defendant can be retried, the guiding principle is “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding.” Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). {¶54} Further, “[t]he constitutional protection against double jeopardy unequivocally prohibits a second trial following an acquittal.” State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 , 2006-Ohio-160 , 840 N.E.2d 1032, ¶ 139 , quoting Arizona v. Washington, 434

2023In assessing whether a criminal defendant can be retried, the guiding principle is “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding.” Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). {¶54} Further, “[t]he constitutional protection against double jeopardy unequivocally prohibits a second trial following an acquittal.” State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 , 2006-Ohio-160 , 840 N.E.2d 1032, ¶ 139 , quoting Arizona v. Washington, 434

2023In assessing whether a criminal defendant can be retried, the guiding principle is “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding.” Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). {¶54} Further, “[t]he constitutional protection against double jeopardy unequivocally prohibits a second trial following an acquittal.” State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 , 2006-Ohio-160 , 840 N.E.2d 1032, ¶ 139 , quoting Arizona v. Washington, 434

2023In assessing whether a criminal defendant can be retried, the guiding principle is “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding.” Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). {¶54} Further, “[t]he constitutional protection against double jeopardy unequivocally prohibits a second trial following an acquittal.” State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 , 2006-Ohio-160 , 840 N.E.2d 1032, ¶ 139 , quoting Arizona v. Washington, 434

2023Hoppel v. Feldman, 7th Dist. No. 09CO34 , 2011-Ohio-1183, ¶ 33 ; Hague v. Summit Acres Skilled Nursing & Rehab., 7th Dist. No. 09NO364, 2010-Ohio-6404, ¶ 21 . {¶45} While ambiguous contracts are construed against the drafter, that rule of construction is merely a guiding principle the court uses in determining the parties’ intent after viewing the extrinsic evidence presented by the parties.

2023Hoppel v. Feldman, 7th Dist. No. 09CO34 , 2011-Ohio-1183, ¶ 33 ; Hague v. Summit Acres Skilled Nursing & Rehab., 7th Dist. No. 09NO364, 2010-Ohio-6404, ¶ 21 . {¶45} While ambiguous contracts are construed against the drafter, that rule of construction is merely a guiding principle the court uses in determining the parties’ intent after viewing the extrinsic evidence presented by the parties.

2023In Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 , 98 S.Ct. 2170 , 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978), the Ohio Supreme Court observed: That “ ‘(a) verdict of acquittal . . . (may) not be reviewed . . . without putting (the defendant) twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution,’ ” has recently been described as “the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence.” United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., (Supra 430 U.S. at 571, 97 S.Ct. 1349 ), Quoting United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671 , 16 S.Ct. 1192 , 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896).

2023In Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 , 98 S.Ct. 2170 , 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978), the Ohio Supreme Court observed: That “ ‘(a) verdict of acquittal . . . (may) not be reviewed . . . without putting (the defendant) twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution,’ ” has recently been described as “the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence.” United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., (Supra 430 U.S. at 571, 97 S.Ct. 1349 ), Quoting United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671 , 16 S.Ct. 1192 , 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896).

2022The guiding principle of the First Amendment is that “ ‘government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.’ ” McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 , 477, 134 S.Ct. 2518 , 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014), quoting Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 , 92 S.Ct. 2286 , 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). {¶ 9} “[A]s a general matter peaceful picketing and leafletting are expressive activities involving ‘speech’ protected by the First Amendment.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176 , 103 S.Ct. 1702 , 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983).

2022The guiding principle of the First Amendment is that “ ‘government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.’ ” McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 , 477, 134 S.Ct. 2518 , 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014), quoting Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 , 92 S.Ct. 2286 , 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). {¶ 9} “[A]s a general matter peaceful picketing and leafletting are expressive activities involving ‘speech’ protected by the First Amendment.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176 , 103 S.Ct. 1702 , 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983).

2022The guiding principle of the First Amendment is that “ ‘government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.’ ” McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 , 477, 134 S.Ct. 2518 , 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014), quoting Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 , 92 S.Ct. 2286 , 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). {¶ 9} “[A]s a general matter peaceful picketing and leafletting are expressive activities involving ‘speech’ protected by the First Amendment.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176 , 103 S.Ct. 1702 , 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983).

2022The guiding principle of the First Amendment is that “ ‘government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.’ ” McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 , 477, 134 S.Ct. 2518 , 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014), quoting Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 , 92 S.Ct. 2286 , 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). {¶ 9} “[A]s a general matter peaceful picketing and leafletting are expressive activities involving ‘speech’ protected by the First Amendment.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176 , 103 S.Ct. 1702 , 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983).

2022The guiding principle of the First Amendment is that “ ‘government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.’ ” McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 , 477, 134 S.Ct. 2518 , 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014), quoting Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 , 92 S.Ct. 2286 , 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). {¶ 9} “[A]s a general matter peaceful picketing and leafletting are expressive activities involving ‘speech’ protected by the First Amendment.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176 , 103 S.Ct. 1702 , 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983).

2022The guiding principle of the First Amendment is that “ ‘government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.’ ” McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 , 477, 134 S.Ct. 2518 , 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014), quoting Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 , 92 S.Ct. 2286 , 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). {¶ 9} “[A]s a general matter peaceful picketing and leafletting are expressive activities involving ‘speech’ protected by the First Amendment.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176 , 103 S.Ct. 1702 , 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983).

2020The guiding principle is that “even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic process.” Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 , 99 S.Ct. 939 , 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979). {¶ 43} The limitations on judicial review “have added force” when it comes to classifications that draw lines with regard to who receives government benefits.

2020The guiding principle is that “even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic process.” Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 , 99 S.Ct. 939 , 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979). {¶ 43} The limitations on judicial review “have added force” when it comes to classifications that draw lines with regard to who receives government benefits.

2018Woda Ivy Glen , 121 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2009-Ohio-762 , 902 N.E.2d 984 , ¶ 28, 29 ; Columbus CitySchools at ¶ 17.

2018Woda Ivy Glen , 121 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2009-Ohio-762 , 902 N.E.2d 984 , ¶ 28, 29 ; Columbus CitySchools at ¶ 17.

2016Meeks v. Papadopulos, 62 Ohio St.2d 187, 191 , 404 N.E.2d 159 (1980). {¶ 63} Testifying in support of the 1989 DMA was William J.

2016Meeks v. Papadopulos, 62 Ohio St.2d 187, 191 , 404 N.E.2d 159 (1980). {¶ 63} Testifying in support of the 1989 DMA was William J.