ad hoc analysis (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

ad hoc analysis in Ohio

5 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2006 0 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City green
scotus · 1978
2 sentences

2006Co. v. City of New York (1987), 438 U.S. 104 and State ex rel R.T.G. v. State (2002), 98 Ohio St.3d 1 ." {¶ 14} The parties to this appeal have not submitted a transcript and normally this would be an obstacle to the appeal.

2005Central, 438 U.S. at 125 . {¶ 19} However, instead of relying on the traditional ad hoc analysis for partial takings, Shelly asserts that it was deprived of all economically viable use of part of its land, namely the subsurface sand and gravel.

41998–2006
Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation green
scotus · 1986
2 sentences

1998Id., 438 U.S. at 124 , 98 S.Ct. at 2659 , 57 L.Ed.2d at 648 .

1998Id., 438 U.S. at 124 , 98 S.Ct. at 2659 , 57 L.Ed.2d at 648 .

21998–1998
State ex rel. R.T.G., Inc. v. State green
ohio · 2002
1 sentence

2006Co. v. City of New York (1987), 438 U.S. 104 and State ex rel R.T.G. v. State (2002), 98 Ohio St.3d 1 ." {¶ 14} The parties to this appeal have not submitted a transcript and normally this would be an obstacle to the appeal.

12006–2006
State v. Long green
ohio · 1978
2 sentences

2001We think Olano gives highly persuasive reasons why no such exception is necessary. {¶ 108} Applying the test for plain error, we cannot find on this record that, “but for the [trial court’s] error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” (Emphasis added.) Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 7 O.O.3d 178 , 372 N.E.2d 804 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

2001We think Olano gives highly persuasive reasons why no such exception is necessary. {¶ 108} Applying the test for plain error, we cannot find on this record that, “but for the [trial court’s] error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” (Emphasis added.) Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 7 O.O.3d 178 , 372 N.E.2d 804 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

12001–2001

Where else courts name it

TX 25 (1994–2025) CA 9 (1989–2021) CO 8 (1980–2025) NY 7 (1920–2015) AR 6 (2009–2021) OH 5 (1998–2006) ID 5 (1983–2019) TN 4 (1975–2018) FL 4 (2014–2021) MI 4 (1980–2020) UT 3 (1994–2022) NM 3 (2014–2014) MN 3 (1986–2014) ME 3 (1975–2019) DC 2 (1976–2011) WA 2 (1973–2018) KY 2 (2013–2017) CT 2 (1979–1986) OR 2 (1986–1995) IA 2 (1992–2026) NC 2 (1997–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check