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 2016–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Munciegreen2 sentences2022“To show that an order for a provisional remedy such as the discovery of privileged * * * materials is final and appealable, R.C. 2905.02(B)(4)(a) requires a showing that the order determines the privilege issue and prevents a judgment in favor of the appellant regarding that issue, while R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)(b) requires a showing that the harm caused by the privilege-related discovery order cannot be meaningfully or effectively remedied by an appeal after final judgment.” Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, 151 Ohio St.3d 356 , 2016-Ohio-8000 , 89 N.E.3d 536 , ¶ 20, citing State v. Muncie, 91 Ohio St. 2022“To show that an order for a provisional remedy such as the discovery of privileged * * * materials is final and appealable, R.C. 2905.02(B)(4)(a) requires a showing that the order determines the privilege issue and prevents a judgment in favor of the appellant regarding that issue, while R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)(b) requires a showing that the harm caused by the privilege-related discovery order cannot be meaningfully or effectively remedied by an appeal after final judgment.” Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, 151 Ohio St.3d 356 , 2016-Ohio-8000 , 89 N.E.3d 536 , ¶ 20, citing State v. Muncie, 91 Ohio St. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, 151 Ohio St.3d 356 , 2016-Ohio-8000 , 89 N.E.3d 536 , ¶ 20. 2022“To show that an order for a provisional remedy such as the discovery of privileged * * * materials is final and appealable, R.C. 2905.02(B)(4)(a) requires a showing that the order determines the privilege issue and prevents a judgment in favor of the appellant regarding that issue, while R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)(b) requires a showing that the harm caused by the privilege-related discovery order cannot be meaningfully or effectively remedied by an appeal after final judgment.” Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, 151 Ohio St.3d 356 , 2016-Ohio-8000 , 89 N.E.3d 536 , ¶ 20, citing State v. Muncie, 91 Ohio St. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Crotts
green
2 sentences2021State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , ¶ 89. {¶55} “Because fairness is subjective, the determination of whether evidence is unfairly prejudicial is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will be overturned only if the discretion is abused.” State v. Crotts, 104 Ohio St.3d 432 , 2004-Ohio-6550 , 820 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 25 . 2021State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , ¶ 89. {¶55} “Because fairness is subjective, the determination of whether evidence is unfairly prejudicial is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will be overturned only if the discretion is abused.” State v. Crotts, 104 Ohio St.3d 432 , 2004-Ohio-6550 , 820 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 25 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Lang
green
2 sentences2021State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , ¶ 89. {¶55} “Because fairness is subjective, the determination of whether evidence is unfairly prejudicial is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will be overturned only if the discretion is abused.” State v. Crotts, 104 Ohio St.3d 432 , 2004-Ohio-6550 , 820 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 25 . 2021State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , ¶ 89. {¶55} “Because fairness is subjective, the determination of whether evidence is unfairly prejudicial is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will be overturned only if the discretion is abused.” State v. Crotts, 104 Ohio St.3d 432 , 2004-Ohio-6550 , 820 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 25 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.