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 2004–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tedeschi v. Atrium Ctrs., L.L.C.green1 sentence2026Tedeschi v. Atrium Ctrs., L.L.C., 2012-Ohio-2929, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), citing Gilchrist v. Gonsor, 2007-Ohio-3903 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Stewart v. Cleveland Clinic Foundationgreen1 sentence2013See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gilchrist v. Gonsor, 88609 (8-2-2007)
green
1 sentence2026Tedeschi v. Atrium Ctrs., L.L.C., 2012-Ohio-2929, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), citing Gilchrist v. Gonsor, 2007-Ohio-3903 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams
green
1 sentence2011Rose Chevrolet, Inc., 36 Ohio St.3d at 20 . {¶ 10} The timeliness of Lisa’s motion is not disputed. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Goldfuss v. Davidson
green
1 sentence2009Therefore, we will next apply a plain error analysis to determine whether the court's failure to appoint a GAL within its own discretion, and according to R.C. 3109.04 , warrants reversal. {¶ 29} "Although in criminal cases `[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court,' no analogous provision exists in the Rules of Civil Procedure. * * * In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to those extremely rare cases | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Goldfuss v. Davidson
green
1 sentence2009Therefore, we will next apply a plain error analysis to determine whether the court's failure to appoint a GAL within its own discretion, and according to R.C. 3109.04 , warrants reversal. {¶ 29} "Although in criminal cases `[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court,' no analogous provision exists in the Rules of Civil Procedure. * * * In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to those extremely rare cases | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Chester Township v. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Gold Touch ; Chester Twp. v. F.O.P. (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 404 , 405 (also holding that failure to read a brief is not considered a 60(B) event). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.