face presumption in Ohio

2023Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks (1993), 509 U.S. 502, 506 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 , quoting 1 D.

2023Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks (1993), 509 U.S. 502, 506 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 , quoting 1 D.

2022Citing Columbus v. Forest, 36 Ohio App.3d 169, 173 , 522 N.E.2d 52 (1987).

2022Citing Columbus v. Forest, 36 Ohio App.3d 169, 173 , 522 N.E.2d 52 (1987).

2008Sedar, 49 Ohio St.3d at 194 , 551 N.E.2d 938 . {¶ 111} This court in Sedar , in a thorough and concise opinion, upheld the constitutionality of former R.C. 2305.131 in the face of a challenge based on the open-courts and right-to-a-remedy guarantees of Section 16, Article I, as well as on other grounds.

2008Sedar, 49 Ohio St.3d at 194 , 551 N.E.2d 938 . {¶ 111} This court in Sedar , in a thorough and concise opinion, upheld the constitutionality of former R.C. 2305.131 in the face of a challenge based on the open-courts and right-to-a-remedy guarantees of Section 16, Article I, as well as on other grounds.

2008See, also, Smith v. Goodwill Indus. of Miami Valley, Inc. (1998), 130 Ohio App.3d 437 , 443 . {¶ 64} In Williams v. Akron , 107 Ohio St.3d 203 , 2005-Ohio-6268 , at ___11, the Ohio Supreme Court explained: {¶ 65} "Establishing a prima facie case `creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee.' Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981), 450 U.S. 248 , 254 . `If the trier of fact believes plaintiffs evidence, and if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the *Page 18 plaintiff because no issue of f

2008No. C-070263, 2008-Ohio-151 , at ¶ 14 and ¶ 20 ; In re Seldon , 1st Dist.

2006Again, I go back to what happened at the Rule 11 hearing, Mr. Dawkins, and you were fully and completely aware of what was going on and you entered that plea in a completely and absolutely voluntary fashion." {¶ 26} The trial court then discussed Dawkins's present claim that he was innocent, juxtaposed that with his admission of guilt at his plea hearing, and continued as follows: {¶ 27} "Also, under the case of State versus King, again the case I initially cited from the Second District Court of Appeals which was decided in 2004 and once again it can be found at 2004 Ohio 262 , the Court note

2005This was fair comment in the face of the defense argument that the state’s failure to conduct DNA testing was a “colossal blunder” and a “deliberate act.” Moreover, “[p]rosecutors are entitled to latitude as to what the evidence has shown and what inferences can reasonably be drawn from the evidence.” State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 111 , 684 N.E.2d 668 .

2004Co. v. Donovan (1924), 111 Ohio St. 341 .

2001Such a depression in a crosswalk can hardly be called trivial as a matter of law, even though somewhat less than two inches in depth."[*] The open and obvious fiction flies directly in the face of the doctrine of comparative negligence, which is the law today. [*] Cash v. Cincinnati (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 319 , 324-325 .

1988Wiebold Studio, Inc. v. Old World Restorations, Inc. (1985), 19 Ohio App. 3d 246 . “* * * In the instant case the *88 defendant’s business was the confinement of inmates and the maintainance [sic] of discipline.

1986The respondents, in defining the state’s concerns in maintaining the judicial age proscription, rely on Maimed v. Thornburgh (C.A.3, 1980), 621 F. 2d 565 .

1919In support of his contention we are cited to Section 11637, General Code, which provides that “a judgment shall not be vacated on motion or petition until it is adjudged that there is a valid defense to the action in which the judgment was rendered,” and as construing this section favorably to his contention we are cited to a decision of the court of appeals of Hamilton county in the case of City of Cincinnati v. Archiable, 4 Ohio App., 218, the first paragraph of the syllabus of which is as follows: “A trial judge is without discretion, in the face of a rule of court and the provision of Sect