5 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. Co. of Ohiogreen1 sentence2025See Stammco, 2013-Ohio-3019, at ¶ 42-44 (a court may probe the merits of a claim only to the extent of determining whether the plaintiff has satisfied the prerequisites of Civ.R. 23). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2016In her pro se brief, Chambers asks this court to independently review the record for errors pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967). {¶ 5} However, the procedure outlined in Anders typically only applies in criminal cases where appointed counsel determines that an appeal is frivolous. 2016In her pro se brief, Chambers asks this court to independently review the record for errors pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967). {¶ 5} However, the procedure outlined in Anders typically only applies in criminal cases where appointed counsel determines that an appeal is frivolous. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Sumlin
green
2 sentences2013The persons to whom D.T. made the statements were not close acquaintances, and either recanted their statements or were shown to lack credibility. {¶ 132} The Ohio Supreme Court did apply the Chambers factors in Sumlin, 69 Ohio St.3d 105 , 630 N.E.2d 681 , in the context of “fundamental principles of due process,” after the court had already addressed Evid.R. 804(B)(3). 2013The persons to whom D.T. made the statements were not close acquaintances, and either recanted their statements or were shown to lack credibility. {¶ 132} The Ohio Supreme Court did apply the Chambers factors in Sumlin, 69 Ohio St.3d 105 , 630 N.E.2d 681 , in the context of “fundamental principles of due process,” after the court had already addressed Evid.R. 804(B)(3). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Dresher v. Burt
green
1 sentence2008Dresher v. Burt , 75 Ohio St.3d 280 , 1996-Ohio-107 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State, ex rel. Overmeyer v. Walinski
green
1 sentence2008DEFENDANT-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT'S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE "The trial court erred in not granting Chambers' summary judgment on the contract claim as the statute of limitations has run." DEFENDANT-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT'S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO "The trial court erred in not granting Chambers' summary judgment as to appellants' claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress." {¶ 43} Chambers cross-appeals the trial court's partial denial of its motion for summary judgment, namely on the Evans' claims for breach of contract and negligent infliction of emotional distress. {¶ 44} "An o | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gaines v. Preterm-Cleveland, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008The Evans made no demonstration of cognizable injury resulting directly from Chambers' actions. {¶ 37} FRAUD *Page 14 {¶ 38} Regarding their claim for fraud, the Evans argue that the trial court erred by granting Chambers' motion for summary judgment because Bill committed fraud when he told them that Matthew was taken care of. {¶ 39} The Supreme Court of Ohio set forth six elements for fraud: "The elements of an action in actual fraud are: (a) a representation or, where there is a duty to disclose, concealment of a fact , (b) which is material to the transaction at hand , (c) made falsely, wi | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Dresher v. Burt
green
1 sentence2008Dresher v. Burt , 75 Ohio St.3d 280 , 1996-Ohio-107 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.