State ex rel. Fant v. Sykes, 505 N.E.2d 966 (Ohio 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
State ex rel. Fant v. Sykes, 505 N.E.2d 966 (Ohio 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2004 · …the decision to impose sanctions pursuant to civ.r. 11 lies within the discretion of the trial court. ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …under the standard that although a case may be moot with respect to one of the litigants, this court may hear the appeal where there remains a debatable constitutional question to resolve, or where the matter appealed is one of great public or general interest. ⚠ not in text
276 citation events (170 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Villavicencio v. Columbus (ohioctapp, 2024-06-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Villavicencio v. Columbus
Ohio Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Fant v. Sykes, 29 Ohio St.3d 65, 65 (1987); State v. Rosemond, 1st Dist.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Simpson v. Shelby County Tennessee Office of Construction Code Enforcement
W.D. Tenn. · 2021 · confidence medium
Conrad, 243 F. Supp. 3d at 903 (citing Franchise Developers, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 505 N.E.2d 966, 967 (1987)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Conrad v. City of Berea
N.D. Ohio · 2017 · confidence medium
Franchise Developers, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 30 Ohio St.3d 28 , 505 N.E.2d 966, 967 (1987). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward (2×)
Minn. · 2014 · confidence medium
State Bar v. Randolph, 386 S.E.2d 185, 186 (N.C. 1989); Walker v. Schneider, 477 N.W.2d 167, 169-70 (N.D. 1991); Franchise Developers, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 505 N.E.2d 966, 969 (Ohio 1987); Payne v. Jones, 146 P.2d 113, 116 (Okla. 1944); Sagan ex rel.
cited Cited "see" State ex rel. Casanova v. Lutz
Ohio · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 30 Ohio St.3d 28 , 505 N.E.2d 966 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus.
discussed Cited "see" Lamar Advantage GP Co. v. City of Cincinnati
Oh. Ct. Com. Pl., Hamilton · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Franchise Developers, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati , 30 Ohio St.3d 28 , 31, 505 N.E.2d 966 (1987) ("we believe that although the instant matter is technically moot with respect to the plaintiffs, there still remains a debatable constitutional question for this court to resolve.
discussed Cited "see" Showe Management Corp. v. Moore, 08 Ca 10 (5-14-2009)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 28 , 505 N.E.2d 966 , paragraph one of the syllabus; Stacy v. Carr (Feb. 20, 1992), Adams App. No. 519, unreported. {¶ 38} In this case, the forcible entry and detainer action involves the right of possession to subsidized housing.
discussed Cited "see" Barrister's v. Westerville City Council, Unpublished Decision (5-18-2004)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 28 , 33 , 505 N.E.2d 966 ; Gerijo, Inc. v. Fairfield (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 223 , 638 N.E.2d 533 . {¶ 31} In keeping with the foregoing precedent, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's finding that appellee's consideration of aesthetics was not arbitrary or unlawful.
discussed Cited "see" Aseff v. Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals
Ohio Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Consolidated Mgmt., Inc. v. Cleveland (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 238 [6 OBR 307, 452 N.E.2d 1287 ], * * *.’ Franchise Developers, supra, 30 Ohio St.3d at 32 [30 OBR at 37, 505 N.E.2d at 970 ] * * (Emphasis added.) In this case, we agree that the zoning ordinance put Banis on notice that he could not exceed fifty percent of the valuation.
cited Cited "see" Ocsea v. Dept. of Transp.
Ohio Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati *Page 345 (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 28 , 505 N.E.2d 966 (debatable constitutional issue may be resolved despite matter being moot).
cited Cited "see" Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 11 v. Ohio Department of Transportation
Ohio Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 28 , 505 N.E.2d 966 (debatable constitutional issue may be resolved despite matter being moot).
cited Cited "see" Cleveland Industrial Square, Inc. v. Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals
Ohio Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Consolidated Mgmt., Inc. v. Cleveland (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 238 , 6 OBR 307, 452 N.E.2d 1287 .” Franchise Developers, supra, 30 Ohio St.3d at 32 , 30 OBR at 37, 505 N.E.2d at 970 .
cited Cited "see" Anderson v. Ohio State Medical Board
Ohio · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati (1987), 30 Ohio St. 3d 28 , 30 OBR 33, 505 N.E. 2d 966 ; State, ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Linder v. Ohio Dept. of Aging (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 30 Ohio St.3d 28, 31 , 505 N.E.2d 966 (1987); James A. Keller, Inc. v. Flaherty, 74 Ohio App.3d 788, 791 , 600 N.E.2d 736 (10th Dist.1991). 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶11} Generally, an administrative appeal is moot as a matter of law where the record demonstrates the appellant has achieved all the relief the court could afford her with regard to the matters on appeal.
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Cupp (Slip Opinion)
Ohio · 2018 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 30 Ohio St.3d 28, 31 , 505 N.E.2d 966 (1987).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Cupp
Ohio · 2018 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati , 30 Ohio St.3d 28 , 31, 505 N.E.2d 966 (1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Bishop (Slip Opinion) (2×)
Ohio · 2018 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g. , Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati , 30 Ohio St.3d 28 , 31, 505 N.E.2d 966 (1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gemmell v. Anthony
Ohio Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 30 Ohio St.3d 28 , 505 N.E.2d 966 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶7} Here, the trial court’s preliminary injunction entry ordered the parties to establish a single bank account and to run the revenue and expenditures of Hocking Peak Adventure Parks through the single bank account with the approval of both Gemmell and Anthony.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Drydock Coal Co. v. Ohio Division of Reclamation
Ohio Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 28 , 30 OBR 33, 505 N.E.2d 966 , paragraph one of the syllabus.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State, ex rel. Fant
v.
Sykes, Director, Ohio Department of Administrative Services
No. 86-1382.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Apr 1, 1987.
505 N.E.2d 966
Henry J. Fant, pro se. , Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Thomas L. Rosenberg, for appellee Director of Administrative Services., Craig B. Paynter, for appellee Judge William Gillie.
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright.
Cited by 102 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Upon review, this court affirms the judgment of the court of appeals in all respects. The decision to impose sanctions pursuant to Civ. R. 11 lies within the discretion of the trial court. Absent an abuse of discretion, such decision will not be reversed. There was no abuse of discretion herein. Likewise, it is within the authority of the Director of the Department of Administrative Services to hire employees to assist in the work of the department and to delegate that work among such employees.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Sweeney, J., not participating.