set out test in Ohio

2001In State v. Carter (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 593 , 600 , the Ohio Supreme Court delineated when an instruction on a lesser included offense must be given, stating that [i]n State v. Deem (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 205 , paragraph three of the syllabus, this court set out the test used to determine whether one offense constitutes a lesser-included offense of another: "An offense may be a lesser included offense of another if (i) the offense carries a lesser penalty than the other; (ii) the greater offense cannot, as statutorily defined, ever be committed without the lesser offense, as statutorily define

2000The trial court denied these requests. 1 In State v. Deem (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 205 , 533 N.E.2d 294 , paragraph three of the syllabus, this court set out the test used to determine whether one offense constitutes a lesser-included-offense of another: “An offense may be a lesser included offense of another if (i) the offense carries a lesser penalty than the other; (ii) the greater offense cannot, as statutorily defined, ever be committed without the lesser offense, as statutorily defined, also being committed; and (iii) some element of the greater offense is not required to prove the commissi

2001State v. Thomas (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 213 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Palmer (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 543 , 562 .

2000State v. Thomas (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 213 , 533 N.E.2d 286 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Palmer (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 543, 562 , 687 N.E.2d 685 , 702.

2001State v. Thomas (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 213 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Palmer (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 543 , 562 .

2000State v. Thomas (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 213 , 533 N.E.2d 286 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Palmer (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 543, 562 , 687 N.E.2d 685 , 702.

2003Relations Bd. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 257 , the court set out the rule of an appellate court, as follows: In reviewing an order of an administrative agency, an appellate court's role is more limited than that of a trial court reviewing the same order.

2003In Watters v. Love (1965), 1 Ohio App.2d 571 , 579 , the court set out the standard of review: {¶ 6} "Exclusive original jurisdiction to determine reasonable attorney fees being in the Probate Court, the only questions before the Court of Appeals on appeal on questions of law are whether the judgment awarding fees is against the manifest weight of the evidence or contrary to law.

2003If either against the manifest weight of the evidence or contrary to law, final judgment of modification cannot be rendered on reversal, but the cause must be remanded to the Probate Court for further proceedings according to law." Id.

2001In State v. Carter (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 593 , 600 , the Ohio Supreme Court delineated when an instruction on a lesser included offense must be given, stating that [i]n State v. Deem (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 205 , paragraph three of the syllabus, this court set out the test used to determine whether one offense constitutes a lesser-included offense of another: "An offense may be a lesser included offense of another if (i) the offense carries a lesser penalty than the other; (ii) the greater offense cannot, as statutorily defined, ever be committed without the lesser offense, as statutorily define

1977Accountant’ s, supra, paragraph one of the syllabus; Spray Wax Car Wash v. Collins (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 164 . 3 In. the second paragraph of the syllabus of Account-ant’s, supra, this court set out the test for determining whether a consequential or inconsequential service has occurred, as follows: “In determining whether a mixed transaction constitutes a consequential personal service .transaction, a distinction must be made as to the true object of the transaction contract; that is, is the real object sought by the buyer the service per se or the property produced by the service.” Appellant

1977Accountant’ s, supra, paragraph one of the syllabus; Spray Wax Car Wash v. Collins (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 164 . 3 In. the second paragraph of the syllabus of Account-ant’s, supra, this court set out the test for determining whether a consequential or inconsequential service has occurred, as follows: “In determining whether a mixed transaction constitutes a consequential personal service .transaction, a distinction must be made as to the true object of the transaction contract; that is, is the real object sought by the buyer the service per se or the property produced by the service.” Appellant