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 1931–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morris v. Savoygreen1 sentence2015See Morris v. Savoy, 61 Ohio St.3d 684, 695 (1991) (Holmes J., dissenting in part and concurring in part) (“The first general principle which this court must adhere to in this, or in any other, legal review of the constitutionality of a legislative enactment is the firmly established rule that legislative acts enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality and that any doubts must be resolved in favor of the statute.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2020The court noted the firmly established principle that “the detention of an individual by a law enforcement officer must, at the very least, be justified by ‘specific and articulable facts’ indicating that the detention was reasonable.” Id. at 61 , quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 2020The court noted the firmly established principle that “the detention of an individual by a law enforcement officer must, at the very least, be justified by ‘specific and articulable facts’ indicating that the detention was reasonable.” Id. at 61 , quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Chatton
yellow
1 sentence2020The court noted the firmly established principle that “the detention of an individual by a law enforcement officer must, at the very least, be justified by ‘specific and articulable facts’ indicating that the detention was reasonable.” Id. at 61 , quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re Shaeffer Children
green
1 sentence2004In re Shaeffer Children (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 683 ; citing Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745 , 753 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Santosky v. Kramer
green
1 sentence2004In re Shaeffer Children (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 683 ; citing Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745 , 753 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Driver v. Brooks
green
1 sentence1964Lehman v. Haynam, 164 Ohio St., 595 ; Driver v. Brooks, 176 Va., 317 , 10 SE (2d), 887; 28 A. L. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
W. E. Evans & Son v. Pendarvis
neutral
1 sentence1931Evans & Son v. Pendarvis, 124 S. C., 489, 117 S. E., 716 : “Where possession of an automobile truck is given to an agent with authority only to sell it to a prospective purchaser, such agent has no authority to mortgage it; the Bailment Act being inapplicable.” “It is a firmly established doctrine that power conferred upon an agent to sell personal property in his possession does not carry with it an implied power or authority to barter or exchange it for other property, and any attempt on the part of the agent to make such a disposition thereof, in the absence of a ratification by the princip | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.