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 2 courts 2000–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Wolfegreen2 sentences2016Kline v. Carroll, 96 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2002-Ohio-4849 , 775 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 27 (“challenging improper assignment and transfer of a case is an attack on the subject-matter jurisdiction of the transferee court; hence, the doctrines of invited error and waiver do not apply”); Davis v. Wolfe, 92 Ohio St.3d 549, 552 , 751 N.E.2d 1051 (2001) (invited error doctrine was branch of waiver doctrine and did not preclude a habeas corpus petitioner from asserting the court lacked jurisdiction over him). {¶53} Turner’s claim that the adult court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him cannot be waived or b 2016Kline v. Carroll, 96 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2002-Ohio-4849 , 775 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 27 (“challenging improper assignment and transfer of a case is an attack on the subject-matter jurisdiction of the transferee court; hence, the doctrines of invited error and waiver do not apply”); Davis v. Wolfe, 92 Ohio St.3d 549, 552 , 751 N.E.2d 1051 (2001) (invited error doctrine was branch of waiver doctrine and did not preclude a habeas corpus petitioner from asserting the court lacked jurisdiction over him). {¶53} Turner’s claim that the adult court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him cannot be waived or b | 2 | 3 |
State ex rel. Kline v. Carrollgreen2 sentences2016Kline v. Carroll, 96 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2002-Ohio-4849 , 775 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 27 (“challenging improper assignment and transfer of a case is an attack on the subject-matter jurisdiction of the transferee court; hence, the doctrines of invited error and waiver do not apply”); Davis v. Wolfe, 92 Ohio St.3d 549, 552 , 751 N.E.2d 1051 (2001) (invited error doctrine was branch of waiver doctrine and did not preclude a habeas corpus petitioner from asserting the court lacked jurisdiction over him). {¶53} Turner’s claim that the adult court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him cannot be waived or b 2016Kline v. Carroll, 96 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2002-Ohio-4849 , 775 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 27 (“challenging improper assignment and transfer of a case is an attack on the subject-matter jurisdiction of the transferee court; hence, the doctrines of invited error and waiver do not apply”); Davis v. Wolfe, 92 Ohio St.3d 549, 552 , 751 N.E.2d 1051 (2001) (invited error doctrine was branch of waiver doctrine and did not preclude a habeas corpus petitioner from asserting the court lacked jurisdiction over him). {¶53} Turner’s claim that the adult court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him cannot be waived or b | 1 | 1 |
State v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2002See State v. Campbell (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 320 , 324-326 . {¶ 21} In the case at bar, the record indicates that the parties, including Appellant, entered into the agreed stipulation first and the document was then presented to the trial court for its approval. | 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. Reynolds
green
2 sentences2000State v. Reynolds (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 670, 684 , 687 N.E.2d 1358, 1372-1373 . {¶ 25} The state invokes the doctrines of invited error, waiver, and harmless error. 2000State v. Reynolds (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 670, 684 , 687 N.E.2d 1358, 1372-1373 . {¶ 25} The state invokes the doctrines of invited error, waiver, and harmless error. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.