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 2023–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re T.C.green1 sentence2026In re K.J., 2019-Ohio- 123, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.), citing In re T.C., 2018-Ohio-4369, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.), citing Juv.R. 29(F) and R.C. 2151.35(A)(1). | 1 | 1 |
In re S.L.green1 sentence2026See, In re S.L., 2026-Ohio-1814 (5th Dist.), and In re M.L., 2026-Ohio-1815 (5th Dist.). {¶4} The magistrate conducted a contested adjudicatory hearing on October 20, 2025, and found the Child to be dependent. | 1 | 1 |
In re M.L.green1 sentence2026See, In re S.L., 2026-Ohio-1814 (5th Dist.), and In re M.L., 2026-Ohio-1815 (5th Dist.). {¶4} The magistrate conducted a contested adjudicatory hearing on October 20, 2025, and found the Child to be dependent. | 1 | 1 |
In re C.G.green1 sentence2023Summit No. 29171, 2019-Ohio-2102, ¶ 21 (emphasizing that the agency must prove the allegations of dependency, neglect, or abuse by clear and convincing evidence). {¶26} On the date set for the adjudicatory hearing, both parents executed written and oral waivers of their rights to a hearing and agreed to S.R. and V.R. being adjudicated abused under Section 2151.031(A). | 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 ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt
green
1 sentence2026Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463 (1956), paragraph four of the syllabus. {¶ 23} In this case, T.S. posits Magistrate Scott may have been biased or prejudiced against her because of his earlier participation in the contested adjudicatory hearing of C.E. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In re I.R.
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.
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.