overriding principle in Ohio

2019Cuyahoga No. 98388, 2013-Ohio-3722, ¶ 84 , citing State v. Henry, 6th Dist.

2019Cuyahoga No. 98388, 2013-Ohio-3722, ¶ 84 , citing State v. Henry, 6th Dist.

2024Id. at 153 . {¶24} More recently, the Court discussed Juv.R. 9(A) in In re D.S., 2017-Ohio- 8289.

2005The overriding rule upon intake of a child is that formal court action should be a last resort to resolving juvenile problems." In re M.D. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 149 , 153 . {¶ 10} "Whether a [juvenile] proceeding should be dismissed or reach the merits is within the sound discretion of the trial judge." In re Arnett, 3rd Dist.

2014The overriding analysis remains whether the identification procedure was “impermissibly suggestive.” Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). {¶ 14} Appellant argues that the array was unduly suggestive because the photo of his face was substantially larger than the other photos, that Detective Applin acknowledged “purposely blurring” the filler photos, and because in the BMV photo used he is wearing glasses although none of the witnesses described him as wearing glasses. 5.

2014The overriding analysis remains whether the identification procedure was “impermissibly suggestive.” Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). {¶ 14} Appellant argues that the array was unduly suggestive because the photo of his face was substantially larger than the other photos, that Detective Applin acknowledged “purposely blurring” the filler photos, and because in the BMV photo used he is wearing glasses although none of the witnesses described him as wearing glasses. 5.

2008We will address these assignments of error together because they involve the same application of facts and law. {¶ 17} R.C. 2151.23 (A)(2) grants jurisdiction to the juvenile court "to determine the custody of any child not a ward of another court of the state." Although the statute does not set forth a specific test or standard to decide custody cases, the Ohio Supreme Court has made clear that "the overriding principle in custody cases between a parent and nonparent is that natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children." In re Hock

2005Accordingly, in a child-custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent: [A] court may not award custody to the nonparent “without first determining that a preponderance of the evidence shows that the parent abandoned the child; contractually relinquished custody of the child; that the parent has *799 become totally incapable of supporting or caring for the child; or that an award of custody to the parent would be detrimental to the child.” Hockstok, supra, 98 Ohio St.3d 238 , 2002-Ohio-7208 , 781 N.E.2d 971 , at ¶ 17, quoting Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 6 O.O.3d 293 , 369 N.E.2d 1047 , syl

2008The overriding rule upon intake of a child is that formal court action should be a last resort to resolving juvenile problems." The Court vacated the juvenile's adjudication, noting that "[n]othing in the record or in the arguments of the prosecutor persuades us that the `best interest of the child and the public' were served by filing the instant complaint." {¶ 48} R.H. also relies upon the following three cases: In re Smith , 80 Ohio App.3d 502 , 609 N.E.2d 1281 (affirming dismissal of rape charges against 10 year old boy without a referee-recommended evidentiary hearing regarding the boy's

2005No. 5-04-20, 2004-Ohio-5766 , at ¶ 9.

2024Hancock Nos. 5-19-22, 5-19-23, 5-19-24, 2020-Ohio-3413 , a case D.E. cites in his brief, the juvenile court did not parrot the language in R.C. 2152.01(A) in its dispositional analysis.

2023Death is Different: {¶41} Finally, the overriding principle, applicable to any death penalty case, is that “death is different.” Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 411 , 106 S.Ct. 2595 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986) (plurality opinion).

2023Death is Different: {¶41} Finally, the overriding principle, applicable to any death penalty case, is that “death is different.” Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 411 , 106 S.Ct. 2595 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986) (plurality opinion).

2019The court so ruled not because of any breach of confidence (in fact, the court specifically found there had been no improper communication), but because “of the overriding requirement that the public must be able to maintain the right to believe in the total integrity of the Bar as a whole.” Id. at 6 .

2018Nonetheless, we proceed under that directive. -8- Warren CA2017-06-095, CA2017-07-107 thru CA2017-07- 109 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938).

2018Nonetheless, we proceed under that directive. -8- Warren CA2017-06-095, CA2017-07-107 thru CA2017-07- 109 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938).

2018Nonetheless, we proceed under that directive. -8- Warren CA2017-06-095, CA2017-07-107 thru CA2017-07- 109 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938).

2018Nonetheless, we proceed under that directive. -8- Warren CA2017-06-095, CA2017-07-107 thru CA2017-07- 109 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938).

2015Graham, 560 U.S. at 61 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 . {¶ 21} In analyzing Blankenship’s challenge to the registration requirements imposed on him, we must bear in mind the overriding principle that “[t]he concept of proportionality is central to the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 59 .

2015Graham, 560 U.S. at 61 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 . {¶ 21} In analyzing Blankenship’s challenge to the registration requirements imposed on him, we must bear in mind the overriding principle that “[t]he concept of proportionality is central to the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 59 .

2015Bd. of Edn. v. Testa, 130 Ohio St.3d 344 , 2011-Ohio-5534 , 958 N.E.2d 557 , in which we denied exemption to the Ohio State University for property leased to a commercial enterprise.

2015Bd. of Edn. v. Testa, 130 Ohio St.3d 344 , 2011-Ohio-5534 , 958 N.E.2d 557 , in which we denied exemption to the Ohio State University for property leased to a commercial enterprise.

2014Mosier v. Fornof, 126 Ohio St.3d 47 , 2010-Ohio-2516 , 930 N.E.2d 305 .

2014Mosier v. Fornof, 126 Ohio St.3d 47 , 2010-Ohio-2516 , 930 N.E.2d 305 .

2008The overriding rule upon intake of a child is that formal court action should be a last resort to resolving juvenile problems." The Court vacated the juvenile's adjudication, noting that "[n]othing in the record or in the arguments of the prosecutor persuades us that the `best interest of the child and the public' were served by filing the instant complaint." {¶ 48} R.H. also relies upon the following three cases: In re Smith , 80 Ohio App.3d 502 , 609 N.E.2d 1281 (affirming dismissal of rape charges against 10 year old boy without a referee-recommended evidentiary hearing regarding the boy's

2008The overriding rule upon intake of a child is that formal court action should be a last resort to resolving juvenile problems." The Court vacated the juvenile's adjudication, noting that "[n]othing in the record or in the arguments of the prosecutor persuades us that the `best interest of the child and the public' were served by filing the instant complaint." {¶ 48} R.H. also relies upon the following three cases: In re Smith , 80 Ohio App.3d 502 , 609 N.E.2d 1281 (affirming dismissal of rape charges against 10 year old boy without a referee-recommended evidentiary hearing regarding the boy's

2008The overriding rule upon intake of a child is that formal court action should be a last resort to resolving juvenile problems." The Court vacated the juvenile's adjudication, noting that "[n]othing in the record or in the arguments of the prosecutor persuades us that the `best interest of the child and the public' were served by filing the instant complaint." {¶ 48} R.H. also relies upon the following three cases: In re Smith , 80 Ohio App.3d 502 , 609 N.E.2d 1281 (affirming dismissal of rape charges against 10 year old boy without a referee-recommended evidentiary hearing regarding the boy's

2006"When applying the abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court is not free to merely substitute its judgment for that of the trial court." In re Jane Doe 1 (1990), 57 Ohio St.3d 135 , 137-138 . {¶ 19} R.C. 2151.23 (A)(2) gives juvenile courts exclusive jurisdiction to "determine the custody of any child not a ward of another court of this state[.]" {¶ 20} The Supreme Court of Ohio in Hockstok, supra, at ¶ 16-17 , stated: {¶ 21} "* * * the overriding principle in custody cases between a parent and nonparent is that natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, an

2005C.R., supra, 2004-Ohio-4465 , 2004 WL 1899219 , at ¶ 17, citing Hockstok, supra, 98 Ohio St.3d 238 , 2002-Ohio-7208 , 781 N.E.2d 971 , at ¶ 15. {¶ 10} Regardless of where the custody case originates, “within the framework of the statutes, the overriding principle in custody cases between a parent and nonparent is that natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.” Id. at ¶ 18; see, also, Perales, supra; Masitto v. Masitto (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 63 , 22 OBR 81, 488 N.E.2d 857 .

2003Wireman, supra. {¶ 54} In the present action, the commission found that claimant's unemployment in the year prior to injury was voluntary.