expanded claim in Ohio

2025Appellant, however, points out that the trial court did not make any finding regarding the duration of the stop, other than to conclude that Trooper Boetcher extended the stop “for an impermissible time.” However, in Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding that an expanded inquiry of a lawfully stopped motorist about other crimes does not violate the Fourth Amendment: “An officer's inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop, this Court has made plain, do not convert the encounter into something other than

2025Appellant, however, points out that the trial court did not make any finding regarding the duration of the stop, other than to conclude that Trooper Boetcher extended the stop “for an impermissible time.” However, in Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding that an expanded inquiry of a lawfully stopped motorist about other crimes does not violate the Fourth Amendment: “An officer's inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop, this Court has made plain, do not convert the encounter into something other than

2025However, appellees argue that this court’s recent decision in State v. Netter, 2024-Ohio-1068 (4th Dist.), held that Rodriguez “prohibits seizures that result from inquires unrelated to the purpose of a traffic stop that ‘measurably extend the duration of the stop.’” Id. at ¶ 22. {¶38} In Netter, during a traffic stop an officer continued to request and enter information from the driver at minute 8:30 of the [Cite as State v. Lansing, 2025-Ohio-1241 .] dash camera video, while another officer approached the vehicle at 10:00 to explain the canine walk-around protocol.

2025However, appellees argue that this court’s recent decision in State v. Netter, 2024-Ohio-1068 (4th Dist.), held that Rodriguez “prohibits seizures that result from inquires unrelated to the purpose of a traffic stop that ‘measurably extend the duration of the stop.’” Id. at ¶ 22. {¶38} In Netter, during a traffic stop an officer continued to request and enter information from the driver at minute 8:30 of the dash camera video, while another officer approached the vehicle at 10:00 to explain the canine walk-around protocol.

2016The court also gave the OJI instruction of “substantial risk,” which defines it as a “strong possibility as contrasted with a remote or even a significant possibility that a certain result may occur or that certain circumstances may exist.” Id. {¶82} Upon review, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Joneses’ request for an expanded instruction on recklessness.

2016The court also gave the OJI instruction of “substantial risk,” which defines it as a “strong possibility as contrasted with a remote or even a significant possibility that a certain result may occur or that certain circumstances may exist.” Id. {¶82} Upon review, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Joneses’ request for an expanded instruction on recklessness.

1993Co. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 60 , 30 OBR 165, 507 N.E.2d 331 , adopted the traditional test or the expanded test to determine whether a successor corporation is a mere continuation of a predecessor corporation.

1993Co. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 60 , 30 OBR 165, 507 N.E.2d 331 , adopted the traditional test or the expanded test to determine whether a successor corporation is a mere continuation of a predecessor corporation.

2025Appellant, however, points out that the trial court did not make any finding regarding the duration of the stop, other than to conclude that Trooper Boetcher extended the stop “for an impermissible time.” However, in Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding that an expanded inquiry of a lawfully stopped motorist about other crimes does not violate the Fourth Amendment: “An officer's inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop, this Court has made plain, do not convert the encounter into something other than

2025However, appellees argue that this court’s recent decision in State v. Netter, 2024-Ohio-1068 (4th Dist.), held that Rodriguez “prohibits seizures that result from inquires unrelated to the purpose of a traffic stop that ‘measurably extend the duration of the stop.’” Id. at ¶ 22. {¶38} In Netter, during a traffic stop an officer continued to request and enter information from the driver at minute 8:30 of the [Cite as State v. Lansing, 2025-Ohio-1241 .] dash camera video, while another officer approached the vehicle at 10:00 to explain the canine walk-around protocol.

2025Appellant, however, points out that the trial court did not make any finding regarding the duration of the stop, other than to conclude that Trooper Boetcher extended the stop “for an impermissible time.” In Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding that an expanded inquiry of a lawfully stopped motorist about other crimes does not violate the Fourth Amendment: “An officer's inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop, this Court has made plain, do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful

2010We hold that the expanded claim of exemption under 5709.121 is barred in this case for the same reasons we set forth in NBC-Five. {¶ 6} NBC-Thirteen also contends that Philada Home Fund v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1966), 5 Ohio St.2d 135 , 34 O.O.2d 262 , 214 N.E.2d 431 , does not bar a charitable exemption in this case for various reasons.

2010We hold that the expanded claim of exemption under 5709.121 is barred in this case for the same reasons we set forth in NBC-Five. {¶ 6} NBC-Thirteen also contends that Philada Home Fund v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1966), 5 Ohio St.2d 135 , 34 O.O.2d 262 , 214 N.E.2d 431 , does not bar a charitable exemption in this case for various reasons.

2010We addressed substantially the same contentions in NBC-Five, and we find they are equally without merit in the present case. 1 Accordingly, NBC-Thirteen’s claim must fail because of the “consistent and longstanding doctrine that a distinctly residential use of real property defeats a claim of charitable exemption, even where attendant circumstances indicate the existence of charitable motives.” (Emphasis sic.) NBC-Five, 125 Ohio St.3d 394 , 2010-Ohio-1553 , 928 N.E.2d 715, ¶ 9 .

2010We addressed substantially the same contentions in NBC-Five, and we find they are equally without merit in the present case. 1 Accordingly, NBC-Thirteen’s claim must fail because of the “consistent and longstanding doctrine that a distinctly residential use of real property defeats a claim of charitable exemption, even where attendant circumstances indicate the existence of charitable motives.” (Emphasis sic.) NBC-Five, 125 Ohio St.3d 394 , 2010-Ohio-1553 , 928 N.E.2d 715, ¶ 9 .

2006Hosp. (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 69, 77 , 686 N.E.2d 1146 , however, the court expanded its analysis to examine the physician’s relationship with the patient in addition to the university’s financial benefit from the medical treatment at issue.

2006Hosp. (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 69, 77 , 686 N.E.2d 1146 , however, the court expanded its analysis to examine the physician’s relationship with the patient in addition to the university’s financial benefit from the medical treatment at issue.

2001Neal v. McGill Septic Tank Company (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 272 , 273 .

1996The Supreme Court of Ohio subsequently released its decision in Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Cos. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 344 , 617 N.E.2d 1129 .