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 1999–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Goldfuss v. Davidson
green
2 sentences2014In fact, Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at page 11 in the Shannon case, while arguing that the 2006 -14- concerning 1989 DMA where it was not raised in summary judgment stage), citing Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997), syllabus (plain error is recognized in a civil case only in an extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where the unobjected to error seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judi 2014In fact, Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at page 11 in the Shannon case, while arguing that the 2006 -14- concerning 1989 DMA where it was not raised in summary judgment stage), citing Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997), syllabus (plain error is recognized in a civil case only in an extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where the unobjected to error seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judi | 3 | 2011–2014 |
Gable v. Village of Gates Mills
green
2 sentences2013Gable v. Gates Mills, 103 Ohio St.3d 449 , 816 N.E.2d 1049 , 2004-Ohio-5719 , ¶ 43, quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 , syllabus. 2011Gable v. Gates Mills, 103 Ohio St.3d 449 , 2004-Ohio-5719 , ¶43, quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , syllabus. ¶{26} We refuse to find plain error here. | 2 | 2011–2013 |
Cicco v. Stockmaster
green
2 sentences2014R.C. 2721.12 (if any statute * * * is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general also shall be served with a copy of the complaint in the action or proceeding and shall be heard.”); Cicco v. Stockmaster, 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 98-100 , 728 N.E.2d 1066 (2000) (reiterating that this requirement is jurisdictional and finding a problem even where the attorney general was given copy of the summary judgment motion where constitutionality was first raised); Malloy v. Westlake, 52 Ohio St.2d 103, 105-107 , 370 N.E.2d 457 (1977). 2014R.C. 2721.12 (if any statute * * * is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general also shall be served with a copy of the complaint in the action or proceeding and shall be heard.”); Cicco v. Stockmaster, 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 98-100 , 728 N.E.2d 1066 (2000) (reiterating that this requirement is jurisdictional and finding a problem even where the attorney general was given copy of the summary judgment motion where constitutionality was first raised); Malloy v. Westlake, 52 Ohio St.2d 103, 105-107 , 370 N.E.2d 457 (1977). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Malloy v. City of Westlake
green
2 sentences2014R.C. 2721.12 (if any statute * * * is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general also shall be served with a copy of the complaint in the action or proceeding and shall be heard.”); Cicco v. Stockmaster, 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 98-100 , 728 N.E.2d 1066 (2000) (reiterating that this requirement is jurisdictional and finding a problem even where the attorney general was given copy of the summary judgment motion where constitutionality was first raised); Malloy v. Westlake, 52 Ohio St.2d 103, 105-107 , 370 N.E.2d 457 (1977). 2014R.C. 2721.12 (if any statute * * * is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general also shall be served with a copy of the complaint in the action or proceeding and shall be heard.”); Cicco v. Stockmaster, 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 98-100 , 728 N.E.2d 1066 (2000) (reiterating that this requirement is jurisdictional and finding a problem even where the attorney general was given copy of the summary judgment motion where constitutionality was first raised); Malloy v. Westlake, 52 Ohio St.2d 103, 105-107 , 370 N.E.2d 457 (1977). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Johnson v. United States
green
2 sentences2001In Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. at 466 , 117 S.Ct. at 1548 , 137 L.Ed.2d at 727 , a case in which a criminal defendant argued that an unobjected- to error was structural, and therefore outside the plain-error strictures of 1. 2001In Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. at 466 , 117 S.Ct. at 1548 , 137 L.Ed.2d at 727 , a case in which a criminal defendant argued that an unobjected- to error was structural, and therefore outside the plain-error strictures of 1. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Moreland
green
1 sentence1999State v. Phillips (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 72 , 83 ; State v. Moreland (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 58 , 62 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Phillips
green
1 sentence1999State v. Phillips (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 72 , 83 ; State v. Moreland (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 58 , 62 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.