situation rule in Ohio

2019Our standard of review for an ineffective assistance claim in such a situation applies the rule of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2019Our standard of review for an ineffective assistance claim in such a situation applies the rule of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

1966“Paragraph one of the syllabus reads as follows: “ ‘If the owner of a house leases a portion of it, to which access is had by way of hall, stairways or other approaches, to be used by such tenant in common with the owner or tenants of the other portions of the premises and retains the possession and control of such halls, stairways or other approaches, it is his *31 duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the same in a reasonably safe condition.’ (Emphasis added.) See, also, Rice v. Ziegler, 128 Ohio St. 239 , 190 N. E. 560 .

1966“Paragraph one of the syllabus reads as follows: “ ‘If the owner of a house leases a portion of it, to which access is had by way of hall, stairways or other approaches, to be used by such tenant in common with the owner or tenants of the other portions of the premises and retains the possession and control of such halls, stairways or other approaches, it is his *31 duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the same in a reasonably safe condition.’ (Emphasis added.) See, also, Rice v. Ziegler, 128 Ohio St. 239 , 190 N. E. 560 .

1966As we view the situation the principle announced in the case of Davies, a Minor, v. Kelley, 112 Ohio St. 122 , 146 N. E. 888 , is dispositive of this case.

1966As we view the situation the principle announced in the case of Davies, a Minor, v. Kelley, 112 Ohio St. 122 , 146 N. E. 888 , is dispositive of this case.

2017In Shalash , the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted a certified conflict between the Tenth District's holdings in Mohammad and Mobarak , which held that the sale or possession of controlled substance analogs were not criminalized until December 20, 2012 by H.B. 334, and the Twelfth District's holding in State v. Shalash , 2015-Ohio-3836 , 41 N.E.3d 1263 (12th Dist.), which held that they were criminalized as of October 17, 2011 by 2011 Sub.H.B.

2017In Shalash , the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted a certified conflict between the Tenth District's holdings in Mohammad and Mobarak , which held that the sale or possession of controlled substance analogs were not criminalized until December 20, 2012 by H.B. 334, and the Twelfth District's holding in State v. Shalash , 2015-Ohio-3836 , 41 N.E.3d 1263 (12th Dist.), which held that they were criminalized as of October 17, 2011 by 2011 Sub.H.B.

2006The court observed: {¶ 27} “To the extent that our review of case law supports any conclusion, it is this: The fact that no attorney appears to have previously engaged in behavior like Janousek’s is indicative of just how egregious his behavior was.” Id. at 336 , 674 N.W.2d 464 . {¶ 28} While respondent’s actions are unprecedented, the overlapping offenses of committing illegal conduct involving moral turpitude and conduct that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law usually demand an actual suspension from the practice of law in order to protect the public’s interest and the

2006The court observed: {¶ 27} “To the extent that our review of case law supports any conclusion, it is this: The fact that no attorney appears to have previously engaged in behavior like Janousek’s is indicative of just how egregious his behavior was.” Id. at 336 , 674 N.W.2d 464 . {¶ 28} While respondent’s actions are unprecedented, the overlapping offenses of committing illegal conduct involving moral turpitude and conduct that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law usually demand an actual suspension from the practice of law in order to protect the public’s interest and the

2006Vondenhuevel, ¶ 11, citing United States v. Dunn (1987), 480 U.S. 294 , 301 . {¶ 22} Applying Dunn 's four-pronged test to the situation at bar, this court finds that the Wilkoff fenced-in yard is substantially similar to a curtilage.

2003Moreover, we find nothing else in the statute to except this situation from the rule. {¶ 25} Finally, with respect to United Telephone, supra; this was a case from the Court of Appeals for Allen County and is persuasive only with respect to this court.

2000Similarly, in The Mutual Finance Co. v. Politzer (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 177 , the Ohio Supreme Court simply held that guarantors may waive a mortgagor's defense to payment of indebtedness.

1996See State v. Robinette (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 650 , 653 N.E.2d 695 , paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 59 , 11 OBR 250, 463 N.E.2d 1237 ; State v. Venham (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 649, 655 , 645 N.E.2d 831, 834 , quoting State v. Krum (Sept. 1, 1993), Montgomery App. No. 13668, unreported, 1993 WL 333648 .

1996See State v. Robinette (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 650 , 653 N.E.2d 695 , paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 59 , 11 OBR 250, 463 N.E.2d 1237 ; State v. Venham (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 649, 655 , 645 N.E.2d 831, 834 , quoting State v. Krum (Sept. 1, 1993), Montgomery App. No. 13668, unreported, 1993 WL 333648 .

1996See State v. Robinette (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 650 , 653 N.E.2d 695 , paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 59 , 11 OBR 250, 463 N.E.2d 1237 ; State v. Venham (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 649, 655 , 645 N.E.2d 831, 834 , quoting State v. Krum (Sept. 1, 1993), Montgomery App. No. 13668, unreported, 1993 WL 333648 .

1996See State v. Robinette (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 650 , 653 N.E.2d 695 , paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 59 , 11 OBR 250, 463 N.E.2d 1237 ; State v. Venham (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 649, 655 , 645 N.E.2d 831, 834 , quoting State v. Krum (Sept. 1, 1993), Montgomery App. No. 13668, unreported, 1993 WL 333648 .

1992R.C. 2919.22(A) provides in part: “No person, who is the parent, guardian, custodian, person having custody or control, or person in loco parentis of a child under eighteen years of age or a mentally or physically handicapped child under twenty-one years of age, shall create a substantial risk to the health or safety of the child, by violating a duty of care, protection, or support. * * * ” As stated in State v. Sammons (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 460 , 12 O.O.3d 384 , 391 N.E.2d 713 , the apparent intention of the drafters of this section “was to punish a breach of statutory duty, when the breach r

1992R.C. 2919.22(A) provides in part: “No person, who is the parent, guardian, custodian, person having custody or control, or person in loco parentis of a child under eighteen years of age or a mentally or physically handicapped child under twenty-one years of age, shall create a substantial risk to the health or safety of the child, by violating a duty of care, protection, or support. * * * ” As stated in State v. Sammons (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 460 , 12 O.O.3d 384 , 391 N.E.2d 713 , the apparent intention of the drafters of this section “was to punish a breach of statutory duty, when the breach r

1985Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 189 [ 23 O.O.3d 210 ], Furthermore, even though there is a plain-error doctrine recognized in criminal cases by virtue of Crim.

1985Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 189 [ 23 O.O.3d 210 ], Furthermore, even though there is a plain-error doctrine recognized in criminal cases by virtue of Crim.

1932The plaintiff urges that there be applied to this situation the doctrine laid down in Trumbull County Board of Education v State ex Van Wye, 122 Oh St, 247, 171 NE 241 .