party claiming error in Ohio

2026Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 2015-Ohio-3731, ¶ 27 (reviewing court has discretion to consider forfeited constitutional challenges); Scioto 25CA4149 16 State v. Pyles, 2015-Ohio-5594 , ¶ 82 (7th Dist.), quoting State v. Jones, 2008-Ohio-1541, ¶ 65 (7th Dist.) (the plain-error doctrine “‘is a wholly discretionary doctrine’”); see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 135 (2018) (court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶48} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” o

2026For the plain- error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the Pickaway 25CA12 26 outcome of the trial.’” State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 22, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 (1982) (“A ‘plain error’ is obvious and prejudicial although neither objected to nor aff

2026Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 2015-Ohio-3731, ¶ 27 (reviewing court has discretion to consider forfeited constitutional challenges); Scioto 25CA4149 16 State v. Pyles, 2015-Ohio-5594 , ¶ 82 (7th Dist.), quoting State v. Jones, 2008-Ohio-1541, ¶ 65 (7th Dist.) (the plain-error doctrine “‘is a wholly discretionary doctrine’”); see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 135 (2018) (court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶48} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” o

2026For the plain- error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the Pickaway 25CA12 26 outcome of the trial.’” State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 22, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 (1982) (“A ‘plain error’ is obvious and prejudicial although neither objected to nor aff

2026For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law” “at the time of appellate consideration.” (Citations omitted.) In re E.A.G., 2024-Ohio-315, ¶ 81 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22, and quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 (1997).

2024For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law” “at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 (1997); accord Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 ; State v. G.C., 2016-Ohio-717, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.). {¶77} The plain error doctrine is not, however, readily invoked in civil cases.

2024For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the outcome of the [proceedings].’” State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22 , quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 , 436 N.E.2d 1001 (1982) (“A ‘plain error’ i

2024For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the outcome of the [proceedings].’” State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22 , quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 , 436 N.E.2d 1001 (1982) (“A ‘plain error’ i

2026Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 2015-Ohio-3731, ¶ 27 (reviewing court has discretion to consider forfeited constitutional challenges); Scioto 25CA4149 16 State v. Pyles, 2015-Ohio-5594 , ¶ 82 (7th Dist.), quoting State v. Jones, 2008-Ohio-1541, ¶ 65 (7th Dist.) (the plain-error doctrine “‘is a wholly discretionary doctrine’”); see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 135 (2018) (court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶48} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” o

2026Bd. of Revision, 2015-Ohio-4279, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.) (an appellate court retains discretion to consider forfeited argument); see Rosales- Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 134 (2018) (indicating that a court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶16} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish each of the following: (1) “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred; (2) the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings’”; and (3) this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the out

2022For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law” “at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); accord Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 279 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 , 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013); Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 , citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (for error to be plain, it must be obvious error under current law); State v. G.C., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-536, 2016-Ohio-717, ¶ 14 .

2022For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law” “at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); accord Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 279 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 , 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013); Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 , citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (for error to be plain, it must be obvious error under current law); State v. G.C., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-536, 2016-Ohio-717, ¶ 14 .

2025“For the plain error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that ‘ “an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” ’ occurred, (2) that the error was ‘ “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings,” ’ and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error ‘ “must have affected the outcome of the trial.” ’ ” Id., quoting State v. Young, 2018-Ohio-4990, ¶ 4 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Rogers, 2015- Ohio-2459, ¶ 22, “Thus, for error to be plain, the error must be ‘ “clearly outcome- determinative.” ’ ” Id. citing State v. Porter, 2012-Ohio-1526, ¶

2025“For the plain error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that ‘ “an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” ’ occurred, (2) that the error was ‘ “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings,” ’ and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error ‘ “must have affected the outcome of the trial.” ’ ” Id., quoting State v. Young, 2018-Ohio-4990, ¶ 4 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Rogers, 2015- Ohio-2459, ¶ 22, “Thus, for error to be plain, the error must be ‘ “clearly outcome- determinative.” ’ ” Id. citing State v. Porter, 2012-Ohio-1526, ¶

2025Sultaana, 2023-Ohio-1177, ¶ 24, n. 2 ; Schutte 2019-Ohio-1611, ¶ 26 , adopted, 2019-Ohio-1818, ¶¶ 14-17 . {¶35} It is settled law that “the party claiming the privilege has the burden of proving that the privilege applies[.]” Westfield, 2019-Ohio-2697, ¶ 47 (cleaned up); MA Equip.

2023Group v. Silco Fire & Sec., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2018CA00122, 2019-Ohio-2697, ¶ 47 (authorities and internal punctuation omitted); MA Equip.

2022State v. Parsons, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 18CA011328, 2019-Ohio-5021, ¶ 6 (defendant forfeited all but plain error with respect to Confrontation Clause issue when defendant “objected to a portion of [the] testimony on the basis that it called for a legal conclusion from the witness,” but “he did not object to any of it on hearsay grounds”). {¶91} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error esta

2022State v. Parsons, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 18CA011328, 2019-Ohio-5021, ¶ 6 (defendant forfeited all but plain error with respect to Confrontation Clause issue when defendant “objected to a portion of [the] testimony on the basis that it called for a legal conclusion from the witness,” but “he did not object to any of it on hearsay grounds”). {¶91} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error esta

2019Consequently, we may review this issue only for plain error. {¶ 67} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error establishes (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error is a plain or “‘an “obvious” ADAMS, 17CA1056 27 defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected t

2019Consequently, we may review this issue only for plain error. {¶ 67} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error establishes (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error is a plain or “‘an “obvious” ADAMS, 17CA1056 27 defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected t

2026Bd. of Revision, 2015-Ohio-4279, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.) (an appellate court retains discretion to consider forfeited argument); see Rosales- Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 134 (2018) (indicating that a court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶16} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish each of the following: (1) “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred; (2) the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings’”; and (3) this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the out

2026Bd. of Revision, 2015-Ohio-4279, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.) (an appellate court retains discretion to consider forfeited argument); see Rosales- Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 134 (2018) (indicating that a court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶16} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish each of the following: (1) “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred; (2) the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings’”; and (3) this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the out

2022If the party is unable to establish the second requirement, the error is deemed waived.” Campbell v. Johnson, 87 Ohio App.3d 543, 551 , 622 N.E.2d 717 (2d Dist.1993).

2022If the party is unable to establish the second requirement, the error is deemed waived.” Campbell v. Johnson, 87 Ohio App.3d 543, 551 , 622 N.E.2d 717 (2d Dist.1993).

2026Therefore, a court making an immunity determination at the summary judgment stage of proceedings “must look at the evidence and determine whether it is so one-sided that the party claiming immunity should prevail as a matter of law.” Smathers at ¶ 3 , citing Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337, 340 (1993). {¶42} Before reaching Lynch’s employee sovereign immunity argument, we must first address Musson’s argument that Lynch waived sovereign immunity due to his failure to raise it in his answer and his first amended answer, and that his second amended answer, which specifically raised the affirm

2023Therefore, a court making an immunity determination at the summary judgment stage of proceedings ”must look at the evidence and determine whether it is so one-sided that the party claiming immunity should prevail as a matter of 4 law.” Smathers at ¶ 3 , citing Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337, 340 , 617 N.E.2d 1123 (1993). {¶10} With respect to Smith’s claim of immunity, Smith holds the office of the Trumbull County Engineer. “[O]fficeholders are employees of political subdivisions” when sued in their individual, as opposed to their official, capacities.

2026“At ‘a bare minimum, the party claiming the privilege must bring to the court’s attention the existence of such a [peer-review] committee and show the committee investigated the case in question.’” Manley v. Heather Hill, Inc., 2007-Ohio-6944, ¶ 22 (11th Dist.), quoting Smith v. Manor Care of Canton, Inc., 2006-Ohio-1182, ¶ 61 (5th Dist.). {¶ 17} The trial court found that Dayton Children’s “[had] established the first prong of its burden to show the Privilege applies because Ms. Reeder’s affidavit is sufficient to establish that a peer review committee within the meaning of the statute existe

2007Nos. 2005-CA-00100, 2005-CA-00160, 2005-CA-00162, and 2005-CA-00174, 2006-Ohio-1182 , 2006 WL 636975 , at ¶ 61.

2026Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 2015-Ohio-3731, ¶ 27 (reviewing court has discretion to consider forfeited constitutional challenges); Scioto 25CA4149 16 State v. Pyles, 2015-Ohio-5594 , ¶ 82 (7th Dist.), quoting State v. Jones, 2008-Ohio-1541, ¶ 65 (7th Dist.) (the plain-error doctrine “‘is a wholly discretionary doctrine’”); see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 135 (2018) (court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶48} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” o

2019See Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife , 144 Ohio St.3d 278 , 2015-Ohio-3731 , 42 N.E.3d 718 , ¶ 27 (stating that reviewing court has discretion to consider forfeited constitutional challenges). {¶43} Before a reviewing court may consider recognizing plain error, the party claiming error must establish (1) that " 'an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule' " occurred, (2) that the error was " 'an "obvious" defect in the trial proceedings,' " and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error " 'must have affected the outcome of the tr

2025“For the plain error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that ‘ “an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” ’ occurred, (2) that the error was ‘ “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings,” ’ and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error ‘ “must have affected the outcome of the trial.” ’ ” Id., quoting State v. Young, 2018-Ohio-4990, ¶ 4 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Rogers, 2015- Ohio-2459, ¶ 22, “Thus, for error to be plain, the error must be ‘ “clearly outcome- determinative.” ’ ” Id. citing State v. Porter, 2012-Ohio-1526, ¶

2024“Thus, for error to be plain, the error must be ‘ “clearly outcome-determinative.” ’ ” State v. Porter, 2012-Ohio-1526, ¶ 19 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Perez, 2009-Ohio-6179, ¶ 181 , quoting State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245, 268 (2001).

2024Brunson at ¶ 65-67 (applying plain-error review when defendant did not object to “the trial court's consideration of his decision to remain silent and waive allocution in finding that he lacked remorse”). {¶23} For the plain error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the outcome of the trial.’” State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015

2024Brunson at ¶ 65-67 (applying plain-error review when defendant did not object to “the trial court's consideration of his decision to remain silent and waive allocution in finding that he lacked remorse”). {¶23} For the plain error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the outcome of the trial.’” State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015

2024For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law” “at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 (1997); accord Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 ; State v. G.C., 2016-Ohio-717, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.). {¶77} The plain error doctrine is not, however, readily invoked in civil cases.

2023For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law,” and it must be plain “at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); accord Barnes at 27 ; State v. G.C., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-536, 2016-Ohio-717, ¶ 14 . {¶21} The plain error doctrine is not, however, readily invoked in civil cases.

2024Waldmann v. Waldmann, 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 , 358 N.E.2d 521 (1976).

2024Waldmann v. Waldmann, 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 , 358 N.E.2d 521 (1976).

2025“To invoke the plain error doctrine, the party claiming error must establish: (1) that an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule, occurred; (2) that the error was an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings; and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error must have affected the outcome of the trial.” Id., quoting State v. Morgan, 2017-Ohio-7565 , ¶ 40 [actually quoting ¶ 41].

2022See State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196 , 2017-Ohio-7565 , ¶ 48-49 (citations omitted). {¶12} To establish plain error under Crim.R. 52(B), the party claiming error must establish: (1) that an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule, occurred; (2) that the error was an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings; and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error must have affected the outcome of the trial.