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 4 courts 1871–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. LeBonheur Children's Medical Centergreen2 sentences2010See also Johnson, 74 S.W.3d at 343 , in which the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a statute conferring immunity from liability on state employees did not immunize a private hospital “from liability for the acts or omissions of physician residents employed by the State who are also acting as agents or servants of the private hospital.” {¶ 28} Thus, Associated’s argument that it cannot be held liable if Temesy-Armos is personally immune fails. 2010See also Johnson, 74 S.W.3d at 343 , in which the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a statute conferring immunity from liability on state employees did not immunize a private hospital “from liability for the acts or omissions of physician residents employed by the State who are also acting as agents or servants of the private hospital.” {¶ 28} Thus, Associated’s argument that it cannot be held liable if Temesy-Armos is personally immune fails. | 1 | 1 |
Sears v. City of Cincinnatigreen2 sentences2010See Sears v. Cincinnati (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 157 , 60 O.O.2d 113 , 285 N.E.2d 732 , paragraph three of the syllabus (“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior a municipal corporation is liable to a party injured by the negligence of an employee of a hospital owned by the municipality”). 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 23} “ ‘In an action against a principal based on the conduct of a servant in the course of employment: {¶ 24} “ ‘(a) * * * {¶ 25} “ ‘(b) The principal has no defense because of the fact that: {¶ 26} “ ‘* * * {¶ 27} “ ‘(ii) the agent had an immunity from civil liability as to the act 2010See Sears v. Cincinnati (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 157 , 60 O.O.2d 113 , 285 N.E.2d 732 , paragraph three of the syllabus (“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior a municipal corporation is liable to a party injured by the negligence of an employee of a hospital owned by the municipality”). 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 23} “ ‘In an action against a principal based on the conduct of a servant in the course of employment: {¶ 24} “ ‘(a) * * * {¶ 25} “ ‘(b) The principal has no defense because of the fact that: {¶ 26} “ ‘* * * {¶ 27} “ ‘(ii) the agent had an immunity from civil liability as to the act | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kopchak
green
1 sentence2022In support of his argument, Ferricci cites State v. Fairchild, 2d Dist. Darke No. 1481, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 4012 (Aug. 27, 1999), and State v. Kopchak, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2017-0036, 2018-Ohio-1136 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
NLO, Inc. v. Limbach
green
2 sentences2012In particular, we reject the tax commissioner’s reliance on cases involving federal immunity from state taxation such as NLO, Inc. v. Limbach, 66 Ohio St.3d 389 , 613 N.E.2d 193 (1993). 2012In particular, we reject the tax commissioner’s reliance on cases involving federal immunity from state taxation such as NLO, Inc. v. Limbach, 66 Ohio St.3d 389 , 613 N.E.2d 193 (1993). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Adams v. Peoples
green
1 sentence2010This exact issue is addressed in the Restatement of the Law 2d, Agency (1958) 468-469, Section 217: {¶ 23} “ ‘In an action against a principal based on the conduct of a servant in the course of employment: {¶ 24} “ ‘(a) * * * {¶ 25} “ ‘(b) The principal has no defense because of the fact that: {¶ 26} “ ‘ * * * {¶ 27} “ ‘(ii) the agent had an immunity from civil liability as to the act.’ ” (Footnote omitted.) Id. at 142-143 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Van Alen v. . American National Bank
green
1 sentence1911To the same effect is Mechem, Agency, Sections 778, 780 and 781. • In the case of Van Alen v. Bank, 52 N. Y., 1 , it was held that: “An agent instructed to sell his principal’s property and use the proceeds, if necessary, to protect notes on which the principal was endorser, and meanwhile deposit the proceeds in bank to his own credit, sold the property, but substituted other money for the proceeds and deposited such substituted money to his own credit. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
New England Fire & Marine Insurance v. Robinson
green
1 sentence1871It has been hold, in 25 Ind. 536 , that if a loss be sustained in such a case the company would be liable, even if the policy had been procured by an agent in violation of the law. | 1 | 1871–1871 |
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.