Potter test in Ohio

2025That the LOU references that the Burghs engaged an attorney, or that the referenced agreements were not completed does not diminish that the LOU is a valid agreement to reach an agreement. {¶26} In their third assignment of error, the Burghs assert that the trial court erred in holding that whether a contract exists is for the court to decide, citing Wilhelm v. Coverstone, 2018-Ohio-3078 . {¶27} Potter’s brief does not respond to each of the Burghs’ assignments of error, but instead merely asserts that there is no merit to the Burghs’ argument that the LOU is a contract; it is not.

2012Delores’s presence at Jones’s confession provided the necessary reliability for her statements. {¶ 174} Jones cites State v. Smith, 97 Ohio St.3d 367 , 2002-Ohio-6659 , 780 N.E.2d 221 , ¶ 44, and argues that Delores did not have an opportunity to 47 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO “personally observe the matters asserted in her statement or declaration,” as required by the fourth prong of the Potter test, because Delores did not witness Jones kill Yates or see the body in the cemetery. {¶ 175} But the startling event was Jones’s confession and not the murder itself.

2012Delores’s presence at Jones’s confession provided the necessary reliability for her statements. {¶ 174} Jones cites State v. Smith, 97 Ohio St.3d 367 , 2002-Ohio-6659 , 780 N.E.2d 221 , ¶ 44, and argues that Delores did not have an opportunity to 47 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO “personally observe the matters asserted in her statement or declaration,” as required by the fourth prong of the Potter test, because Delores did not witness Jones kill Yates or see the body in the cemetery. {¶ 175} But the startling event was Jones’s confession and not the murder itself.

2008We agree. *Page 12 {¶ 38} The trial court also granted summary judgment against the Potters on their claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, reasoning that Kowalski's assault and Potter's termination by the RETS school were intentional acts on the part of those defendants, not negligence. {¶ 39} The availability of a claim for relief for negligent infliction of emotional distress was first recognized in Ohio in Paugh v. Hanks (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 72 .

2008Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress "does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities." Yeager v. Local Union 20 (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369 , 375 . {¶ 37} The trial court found that reasonable minds could only conclude that the conduct on which Potter's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is predicated, Kowalski's assault and Potter's termination, do not rise to the level of outrageous conduct defined by Hanley, Pyle, and Yeager .

2007State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 12} We first address Potter's claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.