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.
14 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Glen D. Dupris, in Re United States of Americagreen2 sentences2026In the final analysis, all such orders must satisfy the three requirements of R.C. § 2505.02— that the order affect a substantial right in the action and in effect determine the action and prevent a judgment.” Lakewood v. Pfeifer, 83 Ohio App.3d 47, 50 (8th Dist. 1992). {¶20} A trial court’s denial of the prosecution’s motion to dismiss is one such “exception to the general rule that dismissals are not appealable.” Id.; see United States v. Dupris, 664 F.2d 169, 173 (8th Cir. 1981). {¶21} Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Renewed Motion to Dismiss becau 1992In the final analysis, all such orders must satisfy the three requirements of R.C. § 2505.02 — that the order affect a substantial right in the action and in effect determine the action and prevent a judgment.” (Citations omitted.) In United States v. Dupris (C.A.8, 1981), 664 F.2d 169, 173 , the court considered the specific issue of the government’s right to appeal an order denying its motion to dismiss. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Glovergreen1 sentence2026In the final analysis, all such orders must satisfy the three requirements of R.C. § 2505.02— that the order affect a substantial right in the action and in effect determine the action and prevent a judgment.” Lakewood v. Pfeifer, 83 Ohio App.3d 47, 50 (8th Dist. 1992). {¶20} A trial court’s denial of the prosecution’s motion to dismiss is one such “exception to the general rule that dismissals are not appealable.” Id.; see United States v. Dupris, 664 F.2d 169, 173 (8th Cir. 1981). {¶21} Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Renewed Motion to Dismiss becau | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2026In the final analysis, all such orders must satisfy the three requirements of R.C. § 2505.02— that the order affect a substantial right in the action and in effect determine the action and prevent a judgment.” Lakewood v. Pfeifer, 83 Ohio App.3d 47, 50 (8th Dist. 1992). {¶20} A trial court’s denial of the prosecution’s motion to dismiss is one such “exception to the general rule that dismissals are not appealable.” Id.; see United States v. Dupris, 664 F.2d 169, 173 (8th Cir. 1981). {¶21} Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Renewed Motion to Dismiss becau | 1 | 1 |
City of Lakewood v. Pfeifergreen1 sentence2026In the final analysis, all such orders must satisfy the three requirements of R.C. § 2505.02— that the order affect a substantial right in the action and in effect determine the action and prevent a judgment.” Lakewood v. Pfeifer, 83 Ohio App.3d 47, 50 (8th Dist. 1992). {¶20} A trial court’s denial of the prosecution’s motion to dismiss is one such “exception to the general rule that dismissals are not appealable.” Id.; see United States v. Dupris, 664 F.2d 169, 173 (8th Cir. 1981). {¶21} Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Renewed Motion to Dismiss becau | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Vaughn Industries, L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2023Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 8 v. Vaughn Indus., LLC, 116 Ohio St.3d 335 , 2007-Ohio-6439 , 879 N.E.2d 187 . 2023Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 8 v. Vaughn Indus., LLC, 116 Ohio St.3d 335 , 2007-Ohio-6439 , 879 N.E.2d 187 . | 6 | 2011–2023 |
Wisintainer v. Elcen Power Strut Co.
green
2 sentences2005Wisintainer v. Elcen Power Strut Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 352 , 354 . {¶ 18} R.C. 2505.02 (B)(2) provides: {¶ 19} "(B) An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without retrial, when it is one of the following: {¶ 20} "(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or upon a summary application in an action after judgment" {¶ 21} This Court has previously held a declaratory judgment action is a special proceeding, and has further held a judgment entry in a declaratory judgment action which affects the substantial right 2004Wisintainer v. Elcen Power Strut Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 352 , 354 , 617 N.E.2d 1136 . {¶ 13} R.C. § 2505.02 (B) sets forth five types of final appealable orders: {¶ 14} "(B) An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without retrial, when it is one of the following: {¶ 15} "(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment; {¶ 16} "(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or upon a summary application in an action after judgment; {¶ 17} "(3) A | 3 | 2004–2005 |
Denham v. City of New Carlisle
green
2 sentences2008Denham v. New Carlisle (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 594 , 596 , 716 N.E.2d 184 ; Ferraro v. B.F. 2008Denham v. New Carlisle (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 594 , 596 , 716 N.E.2d 184 ; Ferraro v. B.F. | 2 | 2007–2008 |
Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ.
green
2 sentences2018Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 86, 88 , 541 N.E.2d 64 . 2018Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 86, 88 , 541 N.E.2d 64 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.