42 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 2003–2025 15 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cater v. City of Clevelandgreen2 sentences2025Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24, 28 (1998). {¶ 62} The first tier of the analysis involves the application of R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), which states in pertinent part: “Except as provided in division (B) of this section, a political subdivision is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or less to person or property allegedly caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision in connection with a governmental or propriety function.” A school district is a political subdivision subject to the provisions of R.C. 2013Cater, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 . {¶14} Here, appellees’ claims fall within the general grant of immunity found in R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) and appellants are thus protected under the first tier of analysis. | 3 | 13 |
Shalkhauser v. City of Medinagreen2 sentences2024“That immunity, however, is not absolute.” McConnell v. Dudley, 158 Ohio St.3d 388 , 2019-Ohio-4740, ¶ 21 . {¶11} “Under the second tier of the analysis, a political subdivision’s ‘comprehensive immunity can be abrogated pursuant to any of the five exceptions set forth at R.C. 2744.02(B).’” Bevelacqua at ¶ 11 , quoting Shalkhauser v. Medina, 148 Ohio App.3d 41, 46 (9th Dist.2002). 2023“That immunity, however, is not absolute.” McConnell v. Dudley, 158 Ohio St.3d 388 , 2019-Ohio-4740, ¶ 21 . {¶9} “Under the second tier of the analysis, a political subdivision’s ‘comprehensive immunity can be abrogated pursuant to any of the five exceptions set forth at R.C. 2744.02(B).’” 5 Bevelacqua at ¶ 11 , quoting Shalkhauser v. Medina, 148 Ohio App.3d 41, 46 (9th Dist.2002). | 3 | 3 |
Powell v. Clevelandgreen2 sentences2025Powell v. Cleveland, 2022-Ohio-4286, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.). 2024Powell v. Cleveland, 2022-Ohio-4286 , 202 N.E.3d 794, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.). | 2 | 2 |
Koeppen v. Columbusgreen1 sentence2025Koeppen v. Columbus, 2015-Ohio-4463, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.), citing Ohio Bell Tel. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martingreen1 sentence2025Wadlington at ¶ 35 , citing State v. Martin, 2018-Ohio-1098, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.). {¶57} Therefore, all of appellant’s requested instructions satisfied the first tier of the test in that they were all either lesser included, or inferior degree, offenses of the indicted offenses. | 1 | 1 |
Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.green1 sentence2025Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 (1996). {¶6} We note as a threshold matter that the parties do not dispute that Appellants are political subdivisions under R.C. 2744.01(F) and have general immunity under the first tier of the immunity analysis. | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Greenville City Schoolsgreen1 sentence2023All of these characteristics must be present.” Id. at ¶ 25; see also Doe v. Greenville City Schools, --- Ohio St.3d ----, 2022-Ohio-4618 , --- N.E.3d ----, ¶ 27 (“R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) requires that two separate elements be met—the injuries at issue must be caused both (1) by a political subdivision’s employee’s negligence and (2) by a physical defect ‘within or on the grounds of, buildings that are used in connection with the performance of a governmental function.’”). 14. {¶ 38} “Ohio cases addressing the ‘physical defect’ exception in general involve physical defects as part of the structure o | 1 | 1 |
Douglas v. Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn.green2 sentences2023All of these characteristics must be present.” Id. at ¶ 25; see also Doe v. Greenville City Schools, --- Ohio St.3d ----, 2022-Ohio-4618 , --- N.E.3d ----, ¶ 27 (“R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) requires that two separate elements be met—the injuries at issue must be caused both (1) by a political subdivision’s employee’s negligence and (2) by a physical defect ‘within or on the grounds of, buildings that are used in connection with the performance of a governmental function.’”). 14. {¶ 38} “Ohio cases addressing the ‘physical defect’ exception in general involve physical defects as part of the structure o 2023All of these characteristics must be present.” Id. at ¶ 25; see also Doe v. Greenville City Schools, --- Ohio St.3d ----, 2022-Ohio-4618 , --- N.E.3d ----, ¶ 27 (“R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) requires that two separate elements be met—the injuries at issue must be caused both (1) by a political subdivision’s employee’s negligence and (2) by a physical defect ‘within or on the grounds of, buildings that are used in connection with the performance of a governmental function.’”). 14. {¶ 38} “Ohio cases addressing the ‘physical defect’ exception in general involve physical defects as part of the structure o | 1 | 1 |
Hubbard v. Canton City School Board of Educationgreen1 sentence2013Hubbard at ¶ 12, citing Cater, 83 Ohio St.3d at 28 . {¶31} If any of the exceptions to immunity are found to be applicable, then the political subdivision will lose its immunity. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hughes, Unpublished Decision (11-13-2003)green2 sentences2007See Hughes , supra. Here, Lawwill makes no demonstration of Ms. Martinez' lack of partiality. 2007Second, if the juror misconduct is found, it must then be determined whether the misconduct materially affected appellant's substantial rights." State v. Hughes , Mahoning App. No. 02-CA-15, 2003-Ohio-6094 . {¶ 36} In the first tier of the analysis where, as in the case at bar, a claim of jury misconduct involves a juror's concealment of information, the defendant must demonstrate that the jury member was not impartial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2003See State v. Williams , 79 Ohio St.3d 1 , 1997-Ohio-407 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2003See State v. Williams , 79 Ohio St.3d 1 , 1997-Ohio-407 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Colbert v. City of Cleveland
green
2 sentences2022“If any of the exceptions to immunity in R.C. 2744.02(B) do apply and no defense in that section protects the political subdivision from liability, then the third tier of the analysis requires a court to determine whether any of the defenses in R.C. 2744.03 apply, thereby providing the political subdivision a defense against liability.” (Ellipses added in Pelletier.) Pelletier v. Campbell, 153 Ohio St.3d 611 , 2018- Ohio-2121, 109 N.E.3d 1210, ¶ 15 , quoting Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 , 2003-Ohio-3319 , 790 N.E.2d 781, ¶ 7-9 . {¶ 33} It is not disputed that Greenville City Schools 2022“If any of the exceptions to immunity in R.C. 2744.02(B) do apply and no defense in that section protects the political subdivision from liability, then the third tier of the analysis requires a court to determine whether any of the defenses in R.C. 2744.03 apply, thereby providing the political subdivision a defense against liability.” (Ellipses added in Pelletier.) Pelletier v. Campbell, 153 Ohio St.3d 611 , 2018- Ohio-2121, 109 N.E.3d 1210, ¶ 15 , quoting Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 , 2003-Ohio-3319 , 790 N.E.2d 781, ¶ 7-9 . {¶ 33} It is not disputed that Greenville City Schools | 7 | 2011–2022 |
Cater v. Cleveland
green
2 sentences2007Cater v. City of Cleveland , 83 Ohio St.3d 24 , 28 , 697 N.E.2d 610 , 1998-Ohio-421 . {¶ 12} The first tier of the analysis involves the application of R .C. 2744.02(A)(1), which states in pertinent part: "Except as provided in division (B) of this section, a political subdivision is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision in connection with a governmental or proprietary function." The parties do not dispute that appellant Marlington 2007Cater v. City of Cleveland , 83 Ohio St.3d 24 , 28 , 1998-Ohio-421 , 697 N.E.2d 610 . {¶ 12} The first tier of the analysis involves the application of R .C. 2744.02(A)(1), which states in pertinent part: "Except as provided in division (B) of this section, a political subdivision is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision in connection with a governmental or proprietary function." The parties do not dispute that appellant *Page 6 Jac | 4 | 2006–2025 |
McConnell v. Dudley (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2024“That immunity, however, is not absolute.” McConnell v. Dudley, 158 Ohio St.3d 388 , 2019-Ohio-4740, ¶ 21 . {¶11} “Under the second tier of the analysis, a political subdivision’s ‘comprehensive immunity can be abrogated pursuant to any of the five exceptions set forth at R.C. 2744.02(B).’” Bevelacqua at ¶ 11 , quoting Shalkhauser v. Medina, 148 Ohio App.3d 41, 46 (9th Dist.2002). 2023“That immunity, however, is not absolute.” McConnell v. Dudley, 158 Ohio St.3d 388 , 2019-Ohio-4740, ¶ 21 . {¶9} “Under the second tier of the analysis, a political subdivision’s ‘comprehensive immunity can be abrogated pursuant to any of the five exceptions set forth at R.C. 2744.02(B).’” 5 Bevelacqua at ¶ 11 , quoting Shalkhauser v. Medina, 148 Ohio App.3d 41, 46 (9th Dist.2002). | 3 | 2022–2024 |
Greene County Agricultural Society v. Liming
green
2 sentences2018Agricultural Soc. v. Liming , 89 Ohio St.3d 551 , 556-557, 733 N.E.2d 1141 (2000). {¶ 9} First, R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) provides that a political subdivision is generally "not liable for damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision * * * in connection with a governmental or proprietary function." Thus, the first tier of the analysis requires the court to determine whether the entity claiming immunity is a political subdivision and whether the alleged harm occurred in connection with either a governmen 2018Agricultural Soc. v. Liming , 89 Ohio St.3d 551 , 556-557, 733 N.E.2d 1141 (2000). {¶ 9} First, R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) provides that a political subdivision is generally "not liable for damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision * * * in connection with a governmental or proprietary function." Thus, the first tier of the analysis requires the court to determine whether the entity claiming immunity is a political subdivision and whether the alleged harm occurred in connection with either a governmen | 3 | 2017–2018 |
Lambert v. Clancy
green
2 sentences2024"If any of the exceptions to immunity are applicable, thereby exposing the political subdivision to liability, the third tier of the analysis assesses whether any of the defenses to liability contained in R.C. 2744.03 apply to reinstate immunity." Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231 , 2010-Ohio-1483, ¶ 9 . {¶ 16} With regard to the first tier of the analysis, R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) provides: For the purposes of this chapter, the functions of political subdivisions are hereby classified as governmental functions and proprietary functions. 2024"If any of the exceptions to immunity are applicable, thereby exposing the political subdivision to liability, the third tier of the analysis assesses whether any of the defenses to liability contained in R.C. 2744.03 apply to reinstate immunity." Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231 , 2010-Ohio-1483, ¶ 9 . {¶ 16} With regard to the first tier of the analysis, R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) provides: For the purposes of this chapter, the functions of political subdivisions are hereby classified as governmental functions and proprietary functions. | 2 | 2011–2024 |
State v. Shane
green
2 sentences2015“Rather, a court must find ‘sufficient evidence’ to ‘allow a jury to reasonably reject the greater offense and find the defendant guilty on a lesser included (or inferior degree) offense.’ (Emphasis sic.)” Id., quoting Shane at 632 . 11. {¶ 28} In this case, the state does not dispute the first tier of the analysis that vehicular homicide in violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(3)(a) is a lesser included offense of aggravated vehicular homicide in violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(2)(a) or that vehicular homicide in violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(3)(b) is a lesser included offense of aggravated vehicular hom 2013“Rather, a court must find ‘sufficient evidence’ to ‘allow a jury to reasonably reject the greater offense and find the defendant guilty on a lesser included (or inferior degree) offense.’ (Emphasis sic.)” Id., quoting Shane at 632–633. {¶ 26} In this case, the first tier of the analysis is not in dispute, because the State concedes that Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide are lesser included offenses of Murder. | 2 | 2013–2015 |
Goldfarb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Pub. Works
neutral
1 sentence2025Goldfarb v. Cuyahoga Cty., 2025-Ohio-3283, ¶ 20 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Smith v. McBride
green
1 sentence2025This immunity applies whether the actions or omissions by the Clerk were connected with "proprietary functions" or "governmental functions." R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). {¶ 27} "The second tier of the analysis focuses on the five exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B), which can expose the political subdivision to liability." Smith v. McBride, 2011-Ohio-4674, ¶ 14 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Moss v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation
green
1 sentence2024Lorain No. 13CA010335, 2014-Ohio-969, ¶ 10 . {¶13} With respect to the first tier of the immunity analysis, the trial court noted “it is undisputed [the Board] is a ‘governmental agency/organization which operates the Twinsburg City School from Pre-K through high school.’” Under the second tier, the trial court found that based upon the allegations set forth in the complaint, an exception to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) applied. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Pelletier v. Campbell (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022“If any of the exceptions to immunity in R.C. 2744.02(B) do apply and no defense in that section protects the political subdivision from liability, then the third tier of the analysis requires a court to determine whether any of the defenses in R.C. 2744.03 apply, thereby providing the political subdivision a defense against liability.” (Ellipses added in Pelletier.) Pelletier v. Campbell, 153 Ohio St.3d 611 , 2018- Ohio-2121, 109 N.E.3d 1210, ¶ 15 , quoting Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 , 2003-Ohio-3319 , 790 N.E.2d 781, ¶ 7-9 . {¶ 33} It is not disputed that Greenville City Schools 2022“If any of the exceptions to immunity in R.C. 2744.02(B) do apply and no defense in that section protects the political subdivision from liability, then the third tier of the analysis requires a court to determine whether any of the defenses in R.C. 2744.03 apply, thereby providing the political subdivision a defense against liability.” (Ellipses added in Pelletier.) Pelletier v. Campbell, 153 Ohio St.3d 611 , 2018- Ohio-2121, 109 N.E.3d 1210, ¶ 15 , quoting Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 , 2003-Ohio-3319 , 790 N.E.2d 781, ¶ 7-9 . {¶ 33} It is not disputed that Greenville City Schools | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2014State v. Smith, 117 Ohio St.3d 447 , 2008-Ohio-1260 , ¶ 29. {¶7} Applying the second tier of the analysis requires looking to the evidence in this case. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Deanda
green
2 sentences2014State v. Deanda, 136 Ohio St.3d 18 , 2013-Ohio-1722, ¶ 6 . {¶6} Both parties are in agreement on the first tier of the analysis as the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the offense of theft, as defined in R.C. 2913.02, is a lesser included offense of robbery. 2014State v. Deanda, 136 Ohio St.3d 18 , 2013-Ohio-1722, ¶ 6 . {¶6} Both parties are in agreement on the first tier of the analysis as the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the offense of theft, as defined in R.C. 2913.02, is a lesser included offense of robbery. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2011Id. {¶ 9} The first tier of this analysis is fairly straightforward. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.