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 1 courts 2013–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Church at Warren v. Warzalagreen2 sentences2024Trumbull No. 2016- - 24 - Fayette CA2023-02-002 CA2023-03-004 T-0073, 2017-Ohio-6947, ¶ 17 ("A lack of standing defense may be raised at any time during the proceedings, but it does not affect the subject-matter jurisdiction of a court nor can it be used to collaterally attack a judgment"), citing Kuchta at paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. {¶ 68} As the Heirs did not agree to arbitration, and none of the exceptions apply that would compel them to do so, we conclude that the trial court did not err in overruling Repple's motion to compel the Heirs to arbitration. {¶ 69} The cross-assig 2023“A lack of standing defense may be raised at any time during the proceedings, but it does not affect the subject-matter jurisdiction of a court nor can it be used to collaterally attack a judgment.” Church at Warren v. Warzala, 11th Dist. 19 Case Nos. 2022-L-118, 2022-L-119, 2022-L-120, 2022-L-121 Trumbull No. 2016- T-0073, 2017-Ohio-6947, ¶ 17 , citing Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 , 2014-Ohio-4275 , paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. {¶83} “‘It is well-settled that only a corporation and not its shareholders can complain of an injury sustained by, or a wrong done to, | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2023“A lack of standing defense may be raised at any time during the proceedings, but it does not affect the subject-matter jurisdiction of a court nor can it be used to collaterally attack a judgment.” Church at Warren v. Warzala, 11th Dist. 19 Case Nos. 2022-L-118, 2022-L-119, 2022-L-120, 2022-L-121 Trumbull No. 2016- T-0073, 2017-Ohio-6947, ¶ 17 , citing Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 , 2014-Ohio-4275 , paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. {¶83} “‘It is well-settled that only a corporation and not its shareholders can complain of an injury sustained by, or a wrong done to, 2023“A lack of standing defense may be raised at any time during the proceedings, but it does not affect the subject-matter jurisdiction of a court nor can it be used to collaterally attack a judgment.” Church at Warren v. Warzala, 11th Dist. 19 Case Nos. 2022-L-118, 2022-L-119, 2022-L-120, 2022-L-121 Trumbull No. 2016- T-0073, 2017-Ohio-6947, ¶ 17 , citing Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 , 2014-Ohio-4275 , paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. {¶83} “‘It is well-settled that only a corporation and not its shareholders can complain of an injury sustained by, or a wrong done to, | 3 | 2017–2023 |
Adair v. Wozniak
green
2 sentences2023Geauga No. 2010-G-2971, 2011- Ohio-1714, ¶ 43, citing Adair v. Wozniak (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 174, 176 , 492 N.E.2d 426 . “‘[A] plaintiff-shareholder does not have an independent cause of action where there is no showing that he has been injured in any capacity other than in common with all other shareholders as a consequence of the wrongful actions of a third party directed towards the corporation.’ [Adair,] at 178; Matheny v. Ohio Bancorp, 11th Dist. 2023Geauga No. 2010-G-2971, 2011- Ohio-1714, ¶ 43, citing Adair v. Wozniak (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 174, 176 , 492 N.E.2d 426 . “‘[A] plaintiff-shareholder does not have an independent cause of action where there is no showing that he has been injured in any capacity other than in common with all other shareholders as a consequence of the wrongful actions of a third party directed towards the corporation.’ [Adair,] at 178; Matheny v. Ohio Bancorp, 11th Dist. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster
green
2 sentences2013Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 77 , 701 N.E.2d 1002 (1998). 2013Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 77 , 701 N.E.2d 1002 (1998). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.