long-held principle in Ohio

2023In Wright, 2013-Ohio-1973 , the Fifth District Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that the 2004 amendment to the statute had any effect on the long-held principle that the savings statute could not apply twice to the same case: Prior to the 2004 amendment of R.C. 2305.19, the Ohio Supreme Court held the savings statute could only be used once to re-file a case and could not be used to keep actions alive indefinitely.

2022A broad exception of this sort could not easily exist alongside the long-held principle that “no amount of probable cause can justify a warrantless search or seizure absent ‘exigent circumstances,’ ” Coolidge v. N.H., 403 U.S. 443 , 468, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). {¶ 22} Thus, we see no reason to extend the single-purpose-container exception beyond its rationale: that when a container by its very nature makes its 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO contents clear, its owner has no expectation of privacy in those contents.

2022A broad exception of this sort could not easily exist alongside the long-held principle that “no amount of probable cause can justify a warrantless search or seizure absent ‘exigent circumstances,’ ” Coolidge v. N.H., 403 U.S. 443 , 468, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). {¶ 22} Thus, we see no reason to extend the single-purpose-container exception beyond its rationale: that when a container by its very nature makes its 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO contents clear, its owner has no expectation of privacy in those contents.

2015Assignment of error number four: The trial court erred by failing to grant appellant’s motion for change of venue, thereby denying his due process and equal protection rights afforded to him pursuant to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution. {¶ 90} The Supreme Court of Ohio recently reasserted the long-held principle that trial courts have a “‘duty to protect’ criminal defendants from ‘inherently prejudicial 33. publicity’ that renders a jury’s deliberations unfair.” State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 , 2014-Ohio-1942 , 13 N.E.3d 1051, ¶ 54 , citing Sheppard v. Maxwell, 38

2015Assignment of error number four: The trial court erred by failing to grant appellant’s motion for change of venue, thereby denying his due process and equal protection rights afforded to him pursuant to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution. {¶ 90} The Supreme Court of Ohio recently reasserted the long-held principle that trial courts have a “‘duty to protect’ criminal defendants from ‘inherently prejudicial 33. publicity’ that renders a jury’s deliberations unfair.” State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 , 2014-Ohio-1942 , 13 N.E.3d 1051, ¶ 54 , citing Sheppard v. Maxwell, 38

2015Assignment of error number four: The trial court erred by failing to grant appellant’s motion for change of venue, thereby denying his due process and equal protection rights afforded to him pursuant to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution. {¶ 90} The Supreme Court of Ohio recently reasserted the long-held principle that trial courts have a “‘duty to protect’ criminal defendants from ‘inherently prejudicial 33. publicity’ that renders a jury’s deliberations unfair.” State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 , 2014-Ohio-1942 , 13 N.E.3d 1051, ¶ 54 , citing Sheppard v. Maxwell, 38

2015Assignment of error number four: The trial court erred by failing to grant appellant’s motion for change of venue, thereby denying his due process and equal protection rights afforded to him pursuant to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution. {¶ 90} The Supreme Court of Ohio recently reasserted the long-held principle that trial courts have a “‘duty to protect’ criminal defendants from ‘inherently prejudicial 33. publicity’ that renders a jury’s deliberations unfair.” State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 , 2014-Ohio-1942 , 13 N.E.3d 1051, ¶ 54 , citing Sheppard v. Maxwell, 38

2007Haller v. Borror Corp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 10, 14 , 552 N.E.2d 207 ; DeCamp v. Hamma (1876), 29 Ohio St. 467, 471-472 . {¶ 11} Appellants aver that litigating in Ohio would be burdensome because they are out-of-state entities.

2007Haller v. Borror Corp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 10, 14 , 552 N.E.2d 207 ; DeCamp v. Hamma (1876), 29 Ohio St. 467, 471-472 . {¶ 11} Appellants aver that litigating in Ohio would be burdensome because they are out-of-state entities.

2007Haller v. Borror Corp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 10, 14 , 552 N.E.2d 207 ; DeCamp v. Hamma (1876), 29 Ohio St. 467, 471-472 . {¶ 11} Appellants aver that litigating in Ohio would be burdensome because they are out-of-state entities.

2006Our discussion of this assignment of error necessitates an inquiry into the meaning of the Latin term "in loco parentis," as used in R.C. 2907.03 (A)(5). {¶ 55} We are guided by the long-held principle that "when addressing issues of statutory meaning, `[l]egislative intent is the preeminent consideration.'" Gutmann v. Feldman, 97 Ohio St.3d 473 , 2002-Ohio-6721 , 780 N.E.2d 562 , ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel.

2006If he does not, he performs at his peril.’ ” Id. at ¶ 27-28, quoting Lathrop v. Toledo (1966), 5 Ohio St.2d 165, 172-173 , 34 O.O.2d 278 , 214 N.E.2d 408 .

2006If he does not, he performs at his peril.’ ” Id. at ¶ 27-28, quoting Lathrop v. Toledo (1966), 5 Ohio St.2d 165, 172-173 , 34 O.O.2d 278 , 214 N.E.2d 408 .

2006Buchanan Bridge Co. v. Campbell (1899), 60 Ohio St. 406 , 426, 54 N.E. 372 ; Frantz, supra, at 146 , 555 N.E.2d 630 . {¶ 51} In the case of Shampton v. Springboro, 98 Ohio St.3d 457 , 2003-Ohio-1913 , 786 N.E.2d 883 , the Supreme Court of Ohio reaffirmed the long-held principle that “ ‘no recovery can be had on a contract that is entered into contrary to one or more of the legislated requirements * * * ’ A thread running throughout the many cases the court has reviewed is that the contractor must ascertain whether the contract complies with the Constitution, statutes, charters, and ordinances

2006Our discussion of this assignment of error necessitates an inquiry into the meaning of the Latin term "in loco parentis," as used in R.C. 2907.03 (A)(5). {¶ 55} We are guided by the long-held principle that "when addressing issues of statutory meaning, `[l]egislative intent is the preeminent consideration.'" Gutmann v. Feldman, 97 Ohio St.3d 473 , 2002-Ohio-6721 , 780 N.E.2d 562 , ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel.

2006Our discussion of this assignment of error necessitates an inquiry into the meaning of the Latin term "in loco parentis," as used in R.C. 2907.03 (A)(5). {¶ 55} We are guided by the long-held principle that "when addressing issues of statutory meaning, `[l]egislative intent is the preeminent consideration.'" Gutmann v. Feldman, 97 Ohio St.3d 473 , 2002-Ohio-6721 , 780 N.E.2d 562 , ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel.

2006Buchanan Bridge Co. v. Campbell (1899), 60 Ohio St. 406 , 426, 54 N.E. 372 ; Frantz, supra, at 146 , 555 N.E.2d 630 . {¶ 51} In the case of Shampton v. Springboro, 98 Ohio St.3d 457 , 2003-Ohio-1913 , 786 N.E.2d 883 , the Supreme Court of Ohio reaffirmed the long-held principle that “ ‘no recovery can be had on a contract that is entered into contrary to one or more of the legislated requirements * * * ’ A thread running throughout the many cases the court has reviewed is that the contractor must ascertain whether the contract complies with the Constitution, statutes, charters, and ordinances

2006Buchanan Bridge Co. v. Campbell (1899), 60 Ohio St. 406 , 426, 54 N.E. 372 ; Frantz, supra, at 146 , 555 N.E.2d 630 . {¶ 51} In the case of Shampton v. Springboro, 98 Ohio St.3d 457 , 2003-Ohio-1913 , 786 N.E.2d 883 , the Supreme Court of Ohio reaffirmed the long-held principle that “ ‘no recovery can be had on a contract that is entered into contrary to one or more of the legislated requirements * * * ’ A thread running throughout the many cases the court has reviewed is that the contractor must ascertain whether the contract complies with the Constitution, statutes, charters, and ordinances

2002As the United States Supreme Court stated, “a court cannot permit a defendant to be tried on charges that are not made in the indictment against him.” Stirone v. United States (1960), 361 U.S. 212, 218 , 80 S.Ct. 270 , 4 L.Ed.2d 252 .

2002As the United States Supreme Court stated, “a court cannot permit a defendant to be tried on charges that are not made in the indictment against him.” Stirone v. United States (1960), 361 U.S. 212, 218 , 80 S.Ct. 270 , 4 L.Ed.2d 252 .