State v. Winterich

11 Citing cases

  1. State v. Rich

    44 Ohio St. 2d 195 (Ohio 1975)   Cited 7 times
    Defining acupuncture as "the insertion of needles beneath the skin to alleviate pain, infirmity, or disease"

    The provision of R.C. 4731.41 that "[n]o person shall practice medicine or surgery, or any of its branches without a certificate from the State Medical Board" applies to one who has a certificate for the practice of a limited branch of medicine or surgery and who practices medicine or surgery beyond the scope permitted by such limited certificate. (Paragraph one of the syllabus in State v. Winterich, 157 Ohio St. 414, followed.) 3.

  2. Foster v. Ga. Bd. of Chiropractic Exam

    257 Ga. 409 (Ga. 1987)   Cited 9 times
    Treating chiropractic medicine as among the "health professions" in applying rational-basis standard to constitutional challenge to a regulation proscribing certain conduct by chiropractors

    Id. at p. 65. (3) In State v. Winterich, 105 N.E.2d 857 (Ohio St. 1952), the Ohio Supreme Court held that substances, although classifiable as foods, become "drugs" within legal contemplation if prescribed by chiropractors for patients and if such substances are "intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease . . ." 105 N.E.2d at p. 861

  3. State v. Neff

    41 Ohio St. 2d 17 (Ohio 1975)   Cited 11 times

    State v. Urbaytis (1951), 156 Ohio St. 271, 277. And, see State v. Winterich (1952), 157 Ohio St. 414; State v. Petro (1947), 148 Ohio St. 473; Atkins v. State (1927), 115 Ohio St. 542, certiorari denied, 274 U.S. 720; Cole v. McClure (1913), 88 Ohio St. 1; Ford v. Osborne (1887), 45 Ohio St. 1. In the framework of the two cases herein, the only pertinent and substantive speed law is that part of R.C. 4511.21 providing that "no person shall operate a motor vehicle * * * in and upon the streets and highways at a speed greater or less than is reasonable or proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the street or highway and any other conditions."

  4. State v. Gribble

    24 Ohio St. 2d 85 (Ohio 1970)   Cited 56 times
    In Gribble, the Ohio Supreme Court found inadequate an officer's testimony that the scales in question "had a seal and a wire through them that they had been checked[.]"

    In this case, the very essence of the offense entailed a combination of both weight and axle separation, and a failure to establish either was fatal to the presentment of a prima facie case. See State v. Nutter (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 116, 258 N.E.2d 440; State v. Miclau (1957), 167 Ohio St. 38, 146 N.E.2d 293; State v. Winterich (1952), 157 Ohio St. 414, 105 N.E.2d 857. We note also that the record is silent upon the question of the type of tires on appellee's vehicle.

  5. State v. Butler

    11 Ohio St. 2d 23 (Ohio 1967)   Cited 25 times
    Stating that a court may modify a verdict "if the evidence shows that the defendant is not guilty of the degree of the crime for which he was convicted, but is guilty of a lesser included offense"

    "In sustaining the burden, probative evidence must be offered of every material element which is necessary to constitute the crime. State v. Winterich, 157 Ohio St. 414, 105 N.E.2d 857."

  6. State v. Martin

    164 Ohio St. 54 (Ohio 1955)   Cited 52 times

    In sustaining the burden, probative evidence must be offered of every material element which is necessary to constitute the crime. State v. Winterich, 157 Ohio St. 414, 105 N.E.2d 857. Direct and circumstantial evidence in the record in this case constitutes probative evidence that defendant was alone and in possession of the car involved in this accident at the time, as indicated by various witnesses, that it occurred, to wit, 10:30 p.m.

  7. In Matter of A.T.

    2011 Ohio 5104 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)

    The state must prove every element of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Winterich (1952), 157 Ohio St. 414. "In addition to the elements of the crime, the state is required to prove the identity of the perpetrator of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Heigley, 11th Dist. No. 2007-L-122, 2008-Ohio-1688, ΒΆ26, citing State v. Cook (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 516.

  8. Beachwood v. Cohen

    504 N.E.2d 1186 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 10 times

    State v. Kulig, * * * [(1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 157, 160]. Mere suspicion is not sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction. State v. Winterich, * * * [(1952), 157 Ohio St. 414, 423]." (Emphasis added.)

  9. Vermilion v. Stevenson

    7 Ohio App. 3d 170 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 15 times

    "* * * `a statute defining a crime or offense cannot be extended by construction, to persons or things not within its descriptive terms, though they appear to be within the reason and spirit of the statute.'" State v. Winterich (1952), 157 Ohio St. 414, at 419 [47 O.O. 316]. Furthermore, in view of the language of Ordinance No. 553.01, and the citation issued to the appellant, it is clear that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the appellant.

  10. State v. Dutton

    209 N.E.2d 597 (Ohio Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 12 times

    It has been suggested by the prosecution that judicial notice be taken of the contents of the official United States Pharmacopoeia or the official National Formulary to provide the meaning for the term Seconal. This same point was raised in the case of State v. Winterich, 157 Ohio St. 414, 421, 423. The court said (Stewart, J.):