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 1991–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Coffmangreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., R.C. 2311.01, defining “trial” as “a judicial examination of the issues, whether of law or of fact, in an action or proceeding”; Brown v. Coffman (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 168, 170 , 13 OBR 203, 205, 468 N.E.2d 790, 791 (“An examination of the grounds for new trial under Civ.R. 59(A) suggests that the drafters of the rule contemplated the term ‘trial’ in its conventional sense, that is, an adversary proceeding, including pleadings, opening statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and submission to the court or jury for final determination.”); see, also, Huey v. Rider (F 1996See, e.g., R.C. 2311.01, defining “trial” as “a judicial examination of the issues, whether of law or of fact, in an action or proceeding”; Brown v. Coffman (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 168, 170 , 13 OBR 203, 205, 468 N.E.2d 790, 791 (“An examination of the grounds for new trial under Civ.R. 59(A) suggests that the drafters of the rule contemplated the term ‘trial’ in its conventional sense, that is, an adversary proceeding, including pleadings, opening statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and submission to the court or jury for final determination.”); see, also, Huey v. Rider (F | 2 | 3 |
Knecht v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitationgreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., R.C. 2311.01, defining “trial” as “a judicial examination of the issues, whether of law or of fact, in an action or proceeding”; Brown v. Coffman (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 168, 170 , 13 OBR 203, 205, 468 N.E.2d 790, 791 (“An examination of the grounds for new trial under Civ.R. 59(A) suggests that the drafters of the rule contemplated the term ‘trial’ in its conventional sense, that is, an adversary proceeding, including pleadings, opening statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and submission to the court or jury for final determination.”); see, also, Huey v. Rider (F 1996See, e.g., R.C. 2311.01, defining “trial” as “a judicial examination of the issues, whether of law or of fact, in an action or proceeding”; Brown v. Coffman (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 168, 170 , 13 OBR 203, 205, 468 N.E.2d 790, 791 (“An examination of the grounds for new trial under Civ.R. 59(A) suggests that the drafters of the rule contemplated the term ‘trial’ in its conventional sense, that is, an adversary proceeding, including pleadings, opening statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and submission to the court or jury for final determination.”); see, also, Huey v. Rider (F | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gugle v. Loeser
green
1 sentence2022Id. citing Warren People's Market Co. v. Corbett & Sons, 114 Ohio St. 126 , 151 N.E. 51 , paragraph one of the syllabus (“‘the court must examine the entire act to determine whether or not it was the purpose of the Legislature, in addition to imposing express penalties for the violation of the law, to render void any contract based on the prohibited act.’”). {¶32} Consistent with McCullough, we must examine the statute violated as a whole to ascertain the intent of the drafters and whether a violation should render contracts entered in violation of it void. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Warren People's Market Co. v. Corbett & Sons
neutral
2 sentences2022Id. citing Warren People's Market Co. v. Corbett & Sons, 114 Ohio St. 126 , 151 N.E. 51 , paragraph one of the syllabus (“‘the court must examine the entire act to determine whether or not it was the purpose of the Legislature, in addition to imposing express penalties for the violation of the law, to render void any contract based on the prohibited act.’”). {¶32} Consistent with McCullough, we must examine the statute violated as a whole to ascertain the intent of the drafters and whether a violation should render contracts entered in violation of it void. 2022Id. citing Warren People's Market Co. v. Corbett & Sons, 114 Ohio St. 126 , 151 N.E. 51 , paragraph one of the syllabus (“‘the court must examine the entire act to determine whether or not it was the purpose of the Legislature, in addition to imposing express penalties for the violation of the law, to render void any contract based on the prohibited act.’”). {¶32} Consistent with McCullough, we must examine the statute violated as a whole to ascertain the intent of the drafters and whether a violation should render contracts entered in violation of it void. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Burya v. Lake Metroparks Bd. Park Commrs., Unpublished Decision (9-29-2006)
neutral
2 sentences2007No. 2005-L-015, 2006-Ohio-5192 , ¶ 38. 3 The Burya court reasoned, "[i]f the drafters of the rule had intended that the amended complaint and summons be served personally upon a (by then former) John Doe defendant, they would have used the phrases `amended complaint' and `summons to the amended complaint' in the last two sentences of the rule." Ibid. {¶ 29} We observe that Civ.R. 15(C) uses the phrases "amended pleading" and "original pleading" to differentiate between the two, yet, as the Burya court pointed out, Civ.R. 15(D) contains no use of the word "amended" to qualify the word "complain 2007No. 2005-L-015, 2006-Ohio-5192 , ¶ 38. 3 The Burya court reasoned, "[i]f the drafters of the rule had intended that the amended complaint and summons be served personally upon a (by then former) John Doe defendant, they would have used the phrases `amended complaint' and `summons to the amended complaint' in the last two sentences of the rule." Ibid. {¶ 29} We observe that Civ.R. 15(C) uses the phrases "amended pleading" and "original pleading" to differentiate between the two, yet, as the Burya court pointed out, Civ.R. 15(D) contains no use of the word "amended" to qualify the word "complain | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Habeas Corpus for Terry
green
2 sentences1991In determining what constitutes a trial, the following has been stated: “An examination of the grounds for a new trial under Civ.R. 59(A) suggests that the drafters of the rule contemplated the term ‘trial’ in its conventional sense, that is, an adversary proceeding, including pleadings, opening statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and submission to the court or jury for final determination.” Brown v. Coffman (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 168 , 13 OBR 203, 205, 468 N.E.2d 790, 791 ; Terry, supra, 51 Ohio App.3d at 137 , 554 N.E.2d at 1370 . 1991In determining what constitutes a trial, the following has been stated: “An examination of the grounds for a new trial under Civ.R. 59(A) suggests that the drafters of the rule contemplated the term ‘trial’ in its conventional sense, that is, an adversary proceeding, including pleadings, opening statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and submission to the court or jury for final determination.” Brown v. Coffman (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 168 , 13 OBR 203, 205, 468 N.E.2d 790, 791 ; Terry, supra, 51 Ohio App.3d at 137 , 554 N.E.2d at 1370 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.