Court Rulings

Local boards of education—School employees—R.C. 109.78(D)—R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a)—Authorization to carry a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance on school grounds—R.C. 109.78(D) prohibits a school from employing a person who goes armed while on duty in his or her job unless the employee has satisfactorily completed an approved basic peace-officer-training program or has 20 years of experience as a peace officer—Court of appeals' judgment affirmed.

1. <bold>Directed Verdict: Appeal and Error.</bold> In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for directed verdict, an appellate court must treat the motion as an admission of the truth of all competent evidence submitted on behalf of the party against whom the motion is directed; such being the case, the party against whom the motion is directed is entitled to have every controverted fact resolved in its favor and to have the benefit of every inference which can reasonably be deduced from the evidence. 2. <bold>Directed Verdict: Evidence.</bold> A directed verdict is proper at the close of all the evidence only when reasonable minds cannot differ and can draw but one conclusion from the evidence, that is to say, when an issue should be decided as a matter of law. 3. <bold>Judgments: Verdicts.</bold> On a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the moving party is deemed to have admitted as true all the relevant evidence admitted which is favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed, and, further, the party against whom the motion is directed is entitled to the benefit of all proper inferences deducible from the relevant evidence.<page_number>Page 546</page_number> 4. ___: ___. To sustain a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court resolves the controversy as a matter of law and may do so only when the facts are such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion. 5. <bold>Insurance: Contracts: Claims: Proof.</bold> In order to establish a claim for bad faith, a plaintiff must show an absence of a reasonable basis for denying the benefits of the insurance policy and the insurer's knowledge or reckless disregard of the lack of a reasonable basis for denying the claim. 6. <bold>Actions: Insurance: Claims.</bold> Even if an insurance company ultimately grants a claim relating to the insured's benefits, a viable cause of action for bad faith can be based on initial denials. 7. <bold>Actions: Torts: Ins

BABAISAKOV, 24 I&N Dec. 306 (BIA 2007) ID 3585 (PDF) (1) A single ground for removal may require proof of a conviction tied to the statutory elements of a criminal offense, as well as proof of an additional fact or facts that are not tied to the statutory elements of any such offense. (2) When a removal charge depends on proof of both the elements leading to a conviction and some nonelement facts, the nonelement facts may be determined by means of evidence beyond the limited "record of conviction" that may be considered by courts employing the "categorical approach," the "modified categorical approach," or a comparable "divisibility analysis," although the record of conviction may also be a suitable source of proof, depending on the circumstances. (3) Section 101(a)(43)(M)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) (2000), which defines the term "aggravated felony" to mean "an offense that involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000," depends on proof of both a conviction having an element of fraud or deceit and the nonelement fact of a loss exceeding $10,000 that is tied to the conviction. (4) Because the phrase "in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000" is not tied to an element of the fraud or deceit offense, the loss determination is not subject to the limitations of the categorical approach, the modified categorical approach, or a divisibility analysis and may be proved by evidence outside the record of conviction, provided that the loss is still shown to relate to the conduct of which the person was convicted and, for removal purposes, is proven by clear and convincing evidence. (5) The Immigration Judge erred in declining to consider a presentence investigation report as proof of victim loss because of his mistaken belief that he was restricted to consideration of the respondent 's record of conviction.