operation rule in Ohio

1996In State v. Aspell (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 1 , 39 O.O.2d 1 , 225 N.E.2d 226 , paragraph two of the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court described the operation of this doctrine in the following manner: “Under the rule of ejusdem generis, where in a statute terms are first used which are confined to a particular class of objects having well-known and definite features and characteristics, and then afterwards a term having perhaps a broader signification is conjoined, such latter term is, as indicative of legislative intent, to be considered as embracing only things of a similar character as those com

1996In State v. Aspell (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 1 , 39 O.O.2d 1 , 225 N.E.2d 226 , paragraph two of the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court described the operation of this doctrine in the following manner: “Under the rule of ejusdem generis, where in a statute terms are first used which are confined to a particular class of objects having well-known and definite features and characteristics, and then afterwards a term having perhaps a broader signification is conjoined, such latter term is, as indicative of legislative intent, to be considered as embracing only things of a similar character as those com

2012Id.

2004Id.

2000Accordingly, the court cannot tell how much the jury would have awarded appellee solely for intentional infliction of emotional distress.” As the court of appeals observed, this court has acknowledged that the two-issue rule “ ‘has not met with universal favor,’ ” and that we have indicated a reluctance to “ ‘further extend the operation of the rule.’ ” Pulley v. Malek (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 95, 97 , 25 OBR 145, 147, 495 N.E.2d 402, 404 , quoting H.E.

2000Accordingly, the court cannot tell how much the jury would have awarded appellee solely for intentional infliction of emotional distress.” As the court of appeals observed, this court has acknowledged that the two-issue rule “ ‘has not met with universal favor,’ ” and that we have indicated a reluctance to “ ‘further extend the operation of the rule.’ ” Pulley v. Malek (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 95, 97 , 25 OBR 145, 147, 495 N.E.2d 402, 404 , quoting H.E.

2000Culbertson Co. v. Warden (1931), 123 Ohio St. 297, 303 , 175 N.E. 205, 207 .

2000Culbertson Co. v. Warden (1931), 123 Ohio St. 297, 303 , 175 N.E. 205, 207 .

2017R.C. 5703.02(A)(5) gives the BTA jurisdiction over appeals from the "[a]doption and promulgation of rules of the tax commissioner." R.C. 5703.14 plainly provides that "[a]pplications for review of any rule adopted and promulgated by the tax commissioner may be filed with the board of tax appeals by any person who has been or may be injured by the operation of the rule." Under the statute, the burden was on the landowners to "show that the rule is unreasonable." Id. {¶ 8} Despite its statement that it lacked jurisdiction over the landowners' rule-review appeal, the BTA's decision makes clear th

2014State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 282 , 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2014State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 282 , 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2014The parties to the note may avoid the operation of this rule by including an acceleration clause in the agreement.” Id.

2007At the same time many proud citizens would rather work than go on welfare, a fact for which we may all be thankful, but they are nevertheless in these inflationary times of 1971 `financially unable to secure proper nursing care, service and attention in times of illness'." {¶ 50} Upon review, we find appellant's arguments regarding the failure of the trust to be flawed and not tenable given this court's 1971 opinion, the 1994 stipulations and judgment order, and the doctrine of res judicata. {¶ 51} Appellant also argues the specific nature of the bequest and the provision for remaindermen nega

2007At the same time many proud citizens would rather work than go on welfare, a fact for which we may all be thankful, but they are nevertheless in these inflationary times of 1971 `financially unable to secure proper nursing care, service and attention in times of illness'." {¶ 50} Upon review, we find appellant's arguments regarding the failure of the trust to be flawed and not tenable given this court's 1971 opinion, the 1994 stipulations and judgment order, and the doctrine of res judicata. {¶ 51} Appellant also argues the specific nature of the bequest and the provision for remaindermen nega

1996Herder v. Shock (1977), 55 Ohio App.2d 116 , 9 O.O.3d 268 , 379 N.E.2d 608 (1980).

1996Herder v. Shock (1977), 55 Ohio App.2d 116 , 9 O.O.3d 268 , 379 N.E.2d 608 (1980).

1995If the second case is not for the same cause of action, nor between the same parties, the former suit will not prevent the latter.” Id., citing State ex rel.

1995In Anderson v. Creighton (1987), 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 , the Supreme Court wrote: “The operation of this standard [referring to the objective legal reasonableness test in Harlow ], however, depends substantially upon the level of generality at which the relevant ‘legal rule’ is to be identified.

1995In Anderson v. Creighton (1987), 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 , the Supreme Court wrote: “The operation of this standard [referring to the objective legal reasonableness test in Harlow ], however, depends substantially upon the level of generality at which the relevant ‘legal rule’ is to be identified.

1987(John Weenink & Sons Co. v. Court of Common Pleas, 150 Ohio St. 349 , approved and followed.)” It is a condition of the operation of the rule that the claims or causes of action be the same in both cases.

1941“Where the enjoyment of the estate or the period of distribution is postponed for the convenience of the funds of the estate and not for reasons personal to the devisees, the remainder is vested. * * * The possibility of after-born children coming into the class does not interfere with the operation of this rule.” Thomas v. Thomas, 247 Ill., 543, 546 , 93 N. E., 344 .

1941“Where the enjoyment of the estate or the period of distribution is postponed for the convenience of the funds of the estate and not for reasons personal to the devisees, the remainder is vested. * * * The possibility of after-born children coming into the class does not interfere with the operation of this rule.” Thomas v. Thomas, 247 Ill., 543, 546 , 93 N. E., 344 .

1939Vernon, 37 Ohio App., 159 , 174 N. E., 260 , at page 169, the court stated: “ ‘A party cannot by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case escape the operation of the principle that one and the same causes of action shall not be twice litigated.

1939Vernon, 37 Ohio App., 159 , 174 N. E., 260 , at page 169, the court stated: “ ‘A party cannot by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case escape the operation of the principle that one and the same causes of action shall not be twice litigated.

1933The rules governing the construction of such agreements are stated as follows: "The intention of the parties, however, especially of the pledgor, as determined by a proper construction of the provision as to general indebtedness, is the controlling element in the operation of this rule; and accordingly a pledge containing such a provision will secure only such other debts or liabilities of the pledgor as the terms of the pledge show it was the intention of the parties it should secure; and will not be extended to a debt or obligation other than that intended by the pledgor, . . . if the langua

1933The rules governing the construction of such agreements are stated as follows: "The intention of the parties, however, especially of the pledgor, as determined by a proper construction of the provision as to general indebtedness, is the controlling element in the operation of this rule; and accordingly a pledge containing such a provision will secure only such other debts or liabilities of the pledgor as the terms of the pledge show it was the intention of the parties it should secure; and will not be extended to a debt or obligation other than that intended by the pledgor, . . . if the langua

1928We hold that the allegations of the petition, and the evidence offered in support thereof, both before plaintiff rested, and at the close of all the testimony, called for the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur as that rule is laid down in the recent case of Glowacki v. North Western Ohio Ry. & Power Co., 116 Ohio St., 451 , 157 N. E., 21 , 53 A. L.

1928We hold that the allegations of the petition, and the evidence offered in support thereof, both before plaintiff rested, and at the close of all the testimony, called for the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur as that rule is laid down in the recent case of Glowacki v. North Western Ohio Ry. & Power Co., 116 Ohio St., 451 , 157 N. E., 21 , 53 A. L.

1919Elliott on Appellate Procedure, Section 642; Ellis v. City of Hammond, 157 Ind., 267, 271 ; Roush v. Roush, 154 Ind., 562, 573 , and Moore, Admr., v. Lynn et al., 79 Ind., 299.

1919Elliott on Appellate Procedure, Section 642; Ellis v. City of Hammond, 157 Ind., 267, 271 ; Roush v. Roush, 154 Ind., 562, 573 , and Moore, Admr., v. Lynn et al., 79 Ind., 299.

1919Elliott on Appellate Procedure, Section 642; Ellis v. City of Hammond, 157 Ind., 267, 271 ; Roush v. Roush, 154 Ind., 562, 573 , and Moore, Admr., v. Lynn et al., 79 Ind., 299.

1907The operation of the rule must be mutual.” In the case of Densmore v. Tomer, 14 Neb. 392 [ 15 N. W. 724 ], it is said, in the third clause of the syllabus: ‘ ‘ In the application of the rule of res adjudicata, it is essential that its operation be mutual.