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 2008–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Wilson, Unpublished Decision (1-19-2007)green2 sentences2026“However, ‘the presumptions are rebuttable.’” Shury v. Cusato, 2022-Ohio-4401, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.), quoting Concrete Creations & Landscape Design LLC v. Wilkinson, 2021-Ohio-2508, ¶ 28 (7th Dist.), citing Sayavich v. Creatore, 2009-Ohio-5270 , ¶ 93-94 (7th Dist.) (presumption of damages in a defamation per se claim is rebuttable); see also Wilson v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-178, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.) (Defendant rebutted the presumption of compensatory damages in her motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff failed to meet his reciprocal burden and show a genuine issue of material fact remained for trial.). 2023“However, ‘the presumptions are rebuttable.’” Shury v. Cusato, 2022-Ohio-4401 , 203 N.E.3d 175, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.), citing Concrete Creations & Landscape Design L.L.C. v. Wilkinson, 7th Dist. Carroll No. 20 CA 0946, 2021-Ohio-2508, ¶ 28 , and Sayavich v. Creatore, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 07-MA 217, 2009-Ohio-5270 , ¶ 93-94 (presumption of damages in a defamation per se claim is rebuttable); Wilson v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21443, 2007-Ohio-178, ¶ 14 (defendant rebutted the presumption of compensatory damages in her motion for summary judgment and plaintiff failed to meet his reciprocal b | 3 | 3 |
Shury v. Cusatogreen2 sentences2026“However, ‘the presumptions are rebuttable.’” Shury v. Cusato, 2022-Ohio-4401, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.), quoting Concrete Creations & Landscape Design LLC v. Wilkinson, 2021-Ohio-2508, ¶ 28 (7th Dist.), citing Sayavich v. Creatore, 2009-Ohio-5270 , ¶ 93-94 (7th Dist.) (presumption of damages in a defamation per se claim is rebuttable); see also Wilson v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-178, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.) (Defendant rebutted the presumption of compensatory damages in her motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff failed to meet his reciprocal burden and show a genuine issue of material fact remained for trial.). 2023“However, ‘the presumptions are rebuttable.’” Shury v. Cusato, 2022-Ohio-4401 , 203 N.E.3d 175, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.), citing Concrete Creations & Landscape Design L.L.C. v. Wilkinson, 7th Dist. Carroll No. 20 CA 0946, 2021-Ohio-2508, ¶ 28 , and Sayavich v. Creatore, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 07-MA 217, 2009-Ohio-5270 , ¶ 93-94 (presumption of damages in a defamation per se claim is rebuttable); Wilson v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21443, 2007-Ohio-178, ¶ 14 (defendant rebutted the presumption of compensatory damages in her motion for summary judgment and plaintiff failed to meet his reciprocal b | 2 | 2 |
Concrete Creations & Landscape Design L.L.C. v. Wilkinsongreen2 sentences2026“However, ‘the presumptions are rebuttable.’” Shury v. Cusato, 2022-Ohio-4401, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.), quoting Concrete Creations & Landscape Design LLC v. Wilkinson, 2021-Ohio-2508, ¶ 28 (7th Dist.), citing Sayavich v. Creatore, 2009-Ohio-5270 , ¶ 93-94 (7th Dist.) (presumption of damages in a defamation per se claim is rebuttable); see also Wilson v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-178, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.) (Defendant rebutted the presumption of compensatory damages in her motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff failed to meet his reciprocal burden and show a genuine issue of material fact remained for trial.). 2023“However, ‘the presumptions are rebuttable.’” Shury v. Cusato, 2022-Ohio-4401 , 203 N.E.3d 175, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.), citing Concrete Creations & Landscape Design L.L.C. v. Wilkinson, 7th Dist. Carroll No. 20 CA 0946, 2021-Ohio-2508, ¶ 28 , and Sayavich v. Creatore, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 07-MA 217, 2009-Ohio-5270 , ¶ 93-94 (presumption of damages in a defamation per se claim is rebuttable); Wilson v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21443, 2007-Ohio-178, ¶ 14 (defendant rebutted the presumption of compensatory damages in her motion for summary judgment and plaintiff failed to meet his reciprocal b | 1 | 2 |
Pickle v. Swinehartgreen2 sentences2021See generally Pickle v. Swinehart, 170 Ohio St. 441 , 442-443, 166 N.E.2d 227 (1960). (presumption of damages in a defamation per se claim is rebuttable); Wilson v. Wilson, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 21443, 2007-Ohio-178, ¶ 14 (legal presumptions are rebuttable, including the defamation presumption of damages). 2021See generally Pickle v. Swinehart, 170 Ohio St. 441 , 442-443, 166 N.E.2d 227 (1960). (presumption of damages in a defamation per se claim is rebuttable); Wilson v. Wilson, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 21443, 2007-Ohio-178, ¶ 14 (legal presumptions are rebuttable, including the defamation presumption of damages). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Murray v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., Unpublished Decision (2-18-2004)
green
1 sentence2023“Defamation per quod refer[s] to a communication that is capable of being interpreted as defamatory, i.e., it must be determined by the interpretation of the listener, through innuendo, as being either innocent or damaging.” (Emphasis added.) Spitzer at ¶ 51 , citing Northeast Ohio Elite Gymnastics Training Ctr. v. Osborne, 183 Ohio App.3d 104 , 2009-Ohio-2612 , 916 N.E.2d 484 (9th Dist.). “ ‘[I]f a statement is defamatory per quod, the plaintiff must plead and prove special damages,’ though no such requirement exists for defamation per se.” Martin at ¶ 10 , quoting Murray v. Knight- Ridder, I | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Northeast Ohio Elite Gymnastics Training Center, Inc. v. Osborne
green
2 sentences2023“Defamation per quod refer[s] to a communication that is capable of being interpreted as defamatory, i.e., it must be determined by the interpretation of the listener, through innuendo, as being either innocent or damaging.” (Emphasis added.) Spitzer at ¶ 51 , citing Northeast Ohio Elite Gymnastics Training Ctr. v. Osborne, 183 Ohio App.3d 104 , 2009-Ohio-2612 , 916 N.E.2d 484 (9th Dist.). “ ‘[I]f a statement is defamatory per quod, the plaintiff must plead and prove special damages,’ though no such requirement exists for defamation per se.” Martin at ¶ 10 , quoting Murray v. Knight- Ridder, I 2023“Defamation per quod refer[s] to a communication that is capable of being interpreted as defamatory, i.e., it must be determined by the interpretation of the listener, through innuendo, as being either innocent or damaging.” (Emphasis added.) Spitzer at ¶ 51 , citing Northeast Ohio Elite Gymnastics Training Ctr. v. Osborne, 183 Ohio App.3d 104 , 2009-Ohio-2612 , 916 N.E.2d 484 (9th Dist.). “ ‘[I]f a statement is defamatory per quod, the plaintiff must plead and prove special damages,’ though no such requirement exists for defamation per se.” Martin at ¶ 10 , quoting Murray v. Knight- Ridder, I | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Bryans v. English Nanny & Governess School, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008Leal v. Holtvogt (1998), 123 Ohio App.3d 51 , 82 ; Bryans v. English Nanny Governess *Page 7 School, Inc. (1996), 117 Ohio App.3d 303 , 317 , citing Cashion v. Segal (May 15, 1996), Summit App. No. 17411. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Leal v. Holtvogt
green
1 sentence2008Leal v. Holtvogt (1998), 123 Ohio App.3d 51 , 82 ; Bryans v. English Nanny Governess *Page 7 School, Inc. (1996), 117 Ohio App.3d 303 , 317 , citing Cashion v. Segal (May 15, 1996), Summit App. No. 17411. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.