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 2004–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Jack Chilingirian, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appelleegreen1 sentence2024The Court acknowledged the general rule that “inconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside” and rejected the contention that “a different rule should be applied to cases in which a judge is the finder of fact.” Harris at 345 ; see also United States v. Chilingirian, 280 F.3d 704, 711 (6th Cir. 2002) (finding that “inconsistent verdicts rendered by a trial judge provide no greater grounds for reversal than inconsistent verdicts rendered by a jury”); State v. Hill, 2014-Ohio- 387, ¶ 33 (8th Dist.) (holding that “inconsistent verdicts between codefendants is not a su | 1 | 1 |
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Bank of Minneapolis v. State, 313 N.W.2d 619, 623 (Minn.1981). | 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. Huntley
green
1 sentence2024Price cites State v. Huntley, 30 Ohio App.3d 29 (1st Dist. 1986), to support his claim that the verdicts in this case were inconsistent and that inconsistency warrants a reversal. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Dinner Bell Meats, Inc. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision
green
1 sentence2020In holding that the approach was a proper cost approach and not a prohibited "current use" appraisal, the court acknowledged the general principle that " 'the special purpose exception is applied to a building in good condition being used currently and for the foreseeable future for the unique purpose for which it was built,' " a doctrine necessary to prevent "the owner of a distinctive, but yet highly useful, building" from "escap[ing] full property tax liability." Id., quoting Fed. Res. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Harris v. Rivera
green
2 sentences2011The Court acknowledged the general rule that “[i]nconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside” and rejected the contention that “a different rule should be applied to cases in which a judge is the finder of fact.” Id. at 345 , 102 S.Ct. 460 . 2011The Court acknowledged the general rule that “[i]nconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside” and rejected the contention that “a different rule should be applied to cases in which a judge is the finder of fact.” Id. at 345 , 102 S.Ct. 460 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Matrka v. Stephens
green
1 sentence2006Id. at 520 , citing Colley v. Bazell (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 243 , 245 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Colley v. Bazell
green
1 sentence2006Id. at 520 , citing Colley v. Bazell (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 243 , 245 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Allen
green
2 sentences2004In Brletich this court acknowledged the general principle set forth in State v. Allen (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 53 , 29 OBR 436, 506 N.E.2d 199 . 2004In Brletich this court acknowledged the general principle set forth in State v. Allen (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 53 , 29 OBR 436, 506 N.E.2d 199 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.