emphasized doctrine in Ohio

2019A court considering whether to accept the plea could reasonably find the state’s recitation “substantially negated [any] claim of innocence”; the recitation “further provided a means by which the judge could test whether the plea was being intelligently entered * * *.” See Alford, 400 U.S. at 37-38 . {¶16} In summarizing the colloquy and evaluating this issue, the trial court emphasized the defense did not contest that the state’s explanation of evidence substantiated the proof of his guilt.

2007In reaching its holding, the court emphasized that the doctrine of forum non conveniens “does not bear upon the substantive right to recover, and is not a rule upon which * * * actors rely in making decisions about primary conduct — how to manage their business and what precautions to take.” Id. at 454, 114 S.Ct. 981 , 127 L.Ed.2d 285 . {¶ 24} In the instant case, R.C. 2307.92 and 2307.93 are “neutral state Rule[s] regarding the administration of the state courts,” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 918 , 117 S.Ct. 1800 , 138 L.Ed.2d 108 , that do “not bear upon the substantive right to recover,” Miller, 51

2007In reaching its holding, the court emphasized that the doctrine of forum non conveniens “does not bear upon the substantive right to recover, and is not a rule upon which * * * actors rely in making decisions about primary conduct — how to manage their business and what precautions to take.” Id. at 454, 114 S.Ct. 981 , 127 L.Ed.2d 285 . {¶ 24} In the instant case, R.C. 2307.92 and 2307.93 are “neutral state Rule[s] regarding the administration of the state courts,” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 918 , 117 S.Ct. 1800 , 138 L.Ed.2d 108 , that do “not bear upon the substantive right to recover,” Miller, 51

2007In reaching its holding, the court emphasized that the doctrine of forum non conveniens “does not bear upon the substantive right to recover, and is not a rule upon which * * * actors rely in making decisions about primary conduct — how to manage their business and what precautions to take.” Id. at 454, 114 S.Ct. 981 , 127 L.Ed.2d 285 . {¶ 24} In the instant case, R.C. 2307.92 and 2307.93 are “neutral state Rule[s] regarding the administration of the state courts,” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 918 , 117 S.Ct. 1800 , 138 L.Ed.2d 108 , that do “not bear upon the substantive right to recover,” Miller, 51

2007In reaching its holding, the court emphasized that the doctrine of forum non conveniens “does not bear upon the substantive right to recover, and is not a rule upon which * * * actors rely in making decisions about primary conduct — how to manage their business and what precautions to take.” Id. at 454, 114 S.Ct. 981 , 127 L.Ed.2d 285 . {¶ 24} In the instant case, R.C. 2307.92 and 2307.93 are “neutral state Rule[s] regarding the administration of the state courts,” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 918 , 117 S.Ct. 1800 , 138 L.Ed.2d 108 , that do “not bear upon the substantive right to recover,” Miller, 51

2005(Citation omitted.) The court emphasized that the analysis under the "minimum contacts" rule "cannot simply be mechanical or quantitative," but, rather, whether due process is satisfied depends "upon the quality and nature of the activity." Id. at 319 . {¶ 35} Later, in Burger King, supra, the court concluded that "* * * the constitutional touchstone remains whether the defendant purposefully established `minimum contacts' in the forum State." Id. at 474 , quoting Internatl.

1999Although in Gates , the Court abandoned the two-pronged test of Aguilar v. Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108 , and Spinelli v. United States (1969), 393 U.S. 410 , the court emphasized that the factors previously determinative under Aguilar were still highly relevant in a totality of the circumstances approach.

1999Although in Gates , the Court abandoned the two-pronged test of Aguilar v. Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108 , and Spinelli v. United States (1969), 393 U.S. 410 , the court emphasized that the factors previously determinative under Aguilar were still highly relevant in a totality of the circumstances approach.

1995The appropriate factors, and the weight allocated to each factor, will vary with the facts of each case.” (Footnote omitted.) Id. at 235 , 6 OBR at 305, 452 N.E.2d at 1284 .

1995The appropriate factors, and the weight allocated to each factor, will vary with the facts of each case.” (Footnote omitted.) Id. at 235 , 6 OBR at 305, 452 N.E.2d at 1284 .

1991In Ohio, the applicable rule of reason regarding covenants not to compete was stated in Raimonde v. Van Vlerah (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 21 , 71 O.O.2d 12 , 325 N.E.2d 544 , where the Supreme Court wrote in paragraph two of the syllabus: “A covenant restraining an employee from competing with his former employer upon termination of employment is reasonable if the restraint is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.” The court emphasized that this rule is to be applied on a case-by-case basis

1991In Ohio, the applicable rule of reason regarding covenants not to compete was stated in Raimonde v. Van Vlerah (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 21 , 71 O.O.2d 12 , 325 N.E.2d 544 , where the Supreme Court wrote in paragraph two of the syllabus: “A covenant restraining an employee from competing with his former employer upon termination of employment is reasonable if the restraint is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.” The court emphasized that this rule is to be applied on a case-by-case basis

1991Id. at 166, 97 S.Ct. at 2225 , 53 L.Ed.2d at 194 .

1991Id. at 166, 97 S.Ct. at 2225 , 53 L.Ed.2d at 194 .

1987In refusing to accept this plan under the special fund exception, the court emphasized that the exception approved in Kasch v. Miller and elsewhere applied to indebtedness created “* * * ‘* * * by obtaining property to be paid for wholly out of the income of the property.’ (Emphasis added, in part.) Id. at 612 , 14 O.O. at 536 , 22 N.E. 2d at 204 .” In Neffner, the program under consideration was apparently framed to avoid this court’s objections in Griffith .

1987In refusing to accept this plan under the special fund exception, the court emphasized that the exception approved in Kasch v. Miller and elsewhere applied to indebtedness created “* * * ‘* * * by obtaining property to be paid for wholly out of the income of the property.’ (Emphasis added, in part.) Id. at 612 , 14 O.O. at 536 , 22 N.E. 2d at 204 .” In Neffner, the program under consideration was apparently framed to avoid this court’s objections in Griffith .