Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arnott v. Arnottgreen2 sentences2024See Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 , 2012-Ohio- 3208, 972 N.E.2d 586 , ¶ 15-17 (determinations of law pursuant to a request for declaratory relief reviewed de novo); State v. City of Cincinnati Citizen Complaint Auth., 2019-Ohio-5349 , 139 N.E.3d 947 , ¶ 21 (1st Dist.), citing Vontz, 2016-Ohio-8477 , 111 N.E.3d 452, at ¶ 26 , and City of Cleveland, 157 Ohio St. 3d 330 , 2019-Ohio-3820 , 136 N.E.3d 466 , at ¶ 15 (permanent injunctions generally reviewed for an abuse of 14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS discretion, but de novo on questions of law); Thomas v. Othman, 2017-Ohio-8449 , 2024See Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 , 2012-Ohio- 3208, 972 N.E.2d 586 , ¶ 15-17 (determinations of law pursuant to a request for declaratory relief reviewed de novo); State v. City of Cincinnati Citizen Complaint Auth., 2019-Ohio-5349 , 139 N.E.3d 947 , ¶ 21 (1st Dist.), citing Vontz, 2016-Ohio-8477 , 111 N.E.3d 452, at ¶ 26 , and City of Cleveland, 157 Ohio St. 3d 330 , 2019-Ohio-3820 , 136 N.E.3d 466 , at ¶ 15 (permanent injunctions generally reviewed for an abuse of 14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS discretion, but de novo on questions of law); Thomas v. Othman, 2017-Ohio-8449 , | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Othmangreen2 sentences2024See Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 , 2012-Ohio- 3208, 972 N.E.2d 586 , ¶ 15-17 (determinations of law pursuant to a request for declaratory relief reviewed de novo); State v. City of Cincinnati Citizen Complaint Auth., 2019-Ohio-5349 , 139 N.E.3d 947 , ¶ 21 (1st Dist.), citing Vontz, 2016-Ohio-8477 , 111 N.E.3d 452, at ¶ 26 , and City of Cleveland, 157 Ohio St. 3d 330 , 2019-Ohio-3820 , 136 N.E.3d 466 , at ¶ 15 (permanent injunctions generally reviewed for an abuse of 14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS discretion, but de novo on questions of law); Thomas v. Othman, 2017-Ohio-8449 , 2024See Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 , 2012-Ohio- 3208, 972 N.E.2d 586 , ¶ 15-17 (determinations of law pursuant to a request for declaratory relief reviewed de novo); State v. City of Cincinnati Citizen Complaint Auth., 2019-Ohio-5349 , 139 N.E.3d 947 , ¶ 21 (1st Dist.), citing Vontz, 2016-Ohio-8477 , 111 N.E.3d 452, at ¶ 26 , and City of Cleveland, 157 Ohio St. 3d 330 , 2019-Ohio-3820 , 136 N.E.3d 466 , at ¶ 15 (permanent injunctions generally reviewed for an abuse of 14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS discretion, but de novo on questions of law); Thomas v. Othman, 2017-Ohio-8449 , | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cincinnati Complaint Auth.
green
2 sentences2024See Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 , 2012-Ohio- 3208, 972 N.E.2d 586 , ¶ 15-17 (determinations of law pursuant to a request for declaratory relief reviewed de novo); State v. City of Cincinnati Citizen Complaint Auth., 2019-Ohio-5349 , 139 N.E.3d 947 , ¶ 21 (1st Dist.), citing Vontz, 2016-Ohio-8477 , 111 N.E.3d 452, at ¶ 26 , and City of Cleveland, 157 Ohio St. 3d 330 , 2019-Ohio-3820 , 136 N.E.3d 466 , at ¶ 15 (permanent injunctions generally reviewed for an abuse of 14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS discretion, but de novo on questions of law); Thomas v. Othman, 2017-Ohio-8449 , 2024See Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 , 2012-Ohio- 3208, 972 N.E.2d 586 , ¶ 15-17 (determinations of law pursuant to a request for declaratory relief reviewed de novo); State v. City of Cincinnati Citizen Complaint Auth., 2019-Ohio-5349 , 139 N.E.3d 947 , ¶ 21 (1st Dist.), citing Vontz, 2016-Ohio-8477 , 111 N.E.3d 452, at ¶ 26 , and City of Cleveland, 157 Ohio St. 3d 330 , 2019-Ohio-3820 , 136 N.E.3d 466 , at ¶ 15 (permanent injunctions generally reviewed for an abuse of 14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS discretion, but de novo on questions of law); Thomas v. Othman, 2017-Ohio-8449 , | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Cleveland v. State (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2024See Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 , 2012-Ohio- 3208, 972 N.E.2d 586 , ¶ 15-17 (determinations of law pursuant to a request for declaratory relief reviewed de novo); State v. City of Cincinnati Citizen Complaint Auth., 2019-Ohio-5349 , 139 N.E.3d 947 , ¶ 21 (1st Dist.), citing Vontz, 2016-Ohio-8477 , 111 N.E.3d 452, at ¶ 26 , and City of Cleveland, 157 Ohio St. 3d 330 , 2019-Ohio-3820 , 136 N.E.3d 466 , at ¶ 15 (permanent injunctions generally reviewed for an abuse of 14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS discretion, but de novo on questions of law); Thomas v. Othman, 2017-Ohio-8449 , 2024See Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 , 2012-Ohio- 3208, 972 N.E.2d 586 , ¶ 15-17 (determinations of law pursuant to a request for declaratory relief reviewed de novo); State v. City of Cincinnati Citizen Complaint Auth., 2019-Ohio-5349 , 139 N.E.3d 947 , ¶ 21 (1st Dist.), citing Vontz, 2016-Ohio-8477 , 111 N.E.3d 452, at ¶ 26 , and City of Cleveland, 157 Ohio St. 3d 330 , 2019-Ohio-3820 , 136 N.E.3d 466 , at ¶ 15 (permanent injunctions generally reviewed for an abuse of 14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS discretion, but de novo on questions of law); Thomas v. Othman, 2017-Ohio-8449 , | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Vontz v. Miller
green
2 sentences2024See Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 , 2012-Ohio- 3208, 972 N.E.2d 586 , ¶ 15-17 (determinations of law pursuant to a request for declaratory relief reviewed de novo); State v. City of Cincinnati Citizen Complaint Auth., 2019-Ohio-5349 , 139 N.E.3d 947 , ¶ 21 (1st Dist.), citing Vontz, 2016-Ohio-8477 , 111 N.E.3d 452, at ¶ 26 , and City of Cleveland, 157 Ohio St. 3d 330 , 2019-Ohio-3820 , 136 N.E.3d 466 , at ¶ 15 (permanent injunctions generally reviewed for an abuse of 14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS discretion, but de novo on questions of law); Thomas v. Othman, 2017-Ohio-8449 , 2024See Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 , 2012-Ohio- 3208, 972 N.E.2d 586 , ¶ 15-17 (determinations of law pursuant to a request for declaratory relief reviewed de novo); State v. City of Cincinnati Citizen Complaint Auth., 2019-Ohio-5349 , 139 N.E.3d 947 , ¶ 21 (1st Dist.), citing Vontz, 2016-Ohio-8477 , 111 N.E.3d 452, at ¶ 26 , and City of Cleveland, 157 Ohio St. 3d 330 , 2019-Ohio-3820 , 136 N.E.3d 466 , at ¶ 15 (permanent injunctions generally reviewed for an abuse of 14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS discretion, but de novo on questions of law); Thomas v. Othman, 2017-Ohio-8449 , | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States
green
1 sentence2013In their motions, the OKO parties argued the Nonneman parties’ federal securities claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim and that the federal court should, pursuant to the doctrine of abstention in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), dismiss or stay the federal case until the completion of the state court proceeding. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Younger v. Harris
green
2 sentences2005However, because of pending civil and criminal proceedings in state court, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio invoked the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris (1971), 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , staying proceedings in that case. 2005However, because of pending civil and criminal proceedings in state court, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio invoked the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris (1971), 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , staying proceedings in that case. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In Re Owen-Johnson
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.
green
2 sentences1992Comm. of Texas v. Pullman Co. (1941), 312 U.S. 496 , 61 S.Ct. 643 , 85 L.Ed. 971 . 1992Comm. of Texas v. Pullman Co. (1941), 312 U.S. 496 , 61 S.Ct. 643 , 85 L.Ed. 971 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.