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 1994–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mentor Lagoons, Inc. v. Rubingreen2 sentences2006In Ross , the court found that in light of the analysis required by Mentor Lagoons, supra, in order to disqualify counsel under DR 5-102, "it is a reversible error for the trial court to summarily disqualify an attorney solely on a paper allegation without a hearing." Id. at 130, citing Mentor Lagoons, supra, at 258 . {¶ 22} However, the Eighth Appellate District later clarified its position, noting: "Significantly, while the Ross court did mandate that a hearing be conducted, it did not mandate the manner in which that hearing was to be conducted." Landzberg v. 10630 Berea Road, Inc., Cuyahog 2006In Ross , the court found that in light of the analysis required by Mentor Lagoons, supra, in order to disqualify counsel under DR 5-102, "it is a reversible error for the trial court to summarily disqualify an attorney solely on a paper allegation without a hearing." Id. at 130, citing Mentor Lagoons, supra, at 258 . {¶ 22} However, the Eighth Appellate District later clarified its position, noting: "Significantly, while the Ross court did mandate that a hearing be conducted, it did not mandate the manner in which that hearing was to be conducted." Landzberg v. 10630 Berea Road, Inc., Cuyahog | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ross v. Ross
green
2 sentences2019The Eighth District reversed, concluding “it is reversible error for the trial court to summarily disqualify an attorney solely on a paper allegation without a hearing.” Id. at 130 . {¶33} The Reos fail to acknowledge the Eighth District later clarified its position in Landzberg, supra, where it noted “while the Ross court did mandate that a hearing be 9 conducted, it did not mandate the manner in which that hearing was to be conducted.” Id. at *5. {¶34} Accordingly, the case law establishes that while a trial court is required to hold a hearing to consider whether a lawyer should be disqualif 2006In Ross , the court held that in light of the analysis required by Mentor Lagoons , in order to disqualify counsel under DR 5-102, “it is a reversible error for the trial court to summarily disqualify an attorney solely on a paper allegation without a hearing.” Id. at 130, 640 N.E.2d 265 , citing Mentor Lagoons, 31 Ohio St.3d at 258 , 31 OBR 459, 510 N.E.2d 379 . {¶ 22} However, the Eighth Appellate District later clarified its position, noting: “Significantly, while the Ross court did mandate that a hearing be conducted, it did not mandate the manner in which that hearing was to be conducted. | 3 | 2002–2019 |