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 2003–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Connie Reguli v. Lori Russ
green
2 sentences2026Id. {¶29} Because Love did not file his complaint until August 27, 2025, which was more than two years after the cause of action accrued, his claim was time-barred.1 {¶30} The trial court used the wrong date when determining whether Love’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations, but it nonetheless reached the right result. 2026Id. {¶29} Because Love did not file his complaint until August 27, 2025, which was more than two years after the cause of action accrued, his claim was time-barred.1 {¶30} The trial court used the wrong date when determining whether Love’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations, but it nonetheless reached the right result. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Brodie v. Summit County Children Services Board
green
1 sentence2025Love points to two sources for such a duty: Brodie v. Summit Cty., 51 Ohio St.3d 112 (1990), and R.C. 5153.16(A)(1). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Schaub, 22419 (9-19-2008)
green
1 sentence2013Montgomery No. 22419, 2008-Ohio-4729, ¶ 15 . {¶ 10} Love’s motion did not identify a specific ground for relief. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Palmer
green
1 sentence2006State v. Palmer (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 543 , 564 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Kidder
green
2 sentences2003A charge on a “lesser included offense is required only where the evidence presented at trial would reasonably support both an acquittal on the crime charged and a conviction upon the lesser included offense.” State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213 , 533 N.E.2d 286 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Kidder (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 279 , 513 N.E.2d 311 . {¶ 81} During trial, the defense argued for an involuntary manslaughter instruction on Count 5 because of evidence that Lynch wanted to make Love stop crying but did not purposely kill her. 2003A charge on a “lesser included offense is required only where the evidence presented at trial would reasonably support both an acquittal on the crime charged and a conviction upon the lesser included offense.” State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213 , 533 N.E.2d 286 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Kidder (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 279 , 513 N.E.2d 311 . {¶ 81} During trial, the defense argued for an involuntary manslaughter instruction on Count 5 because of evidence that Lynch wanted to make Love stop crying but did not purposely kill her. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2003A charge on a “lesser included offense is required only where the evidence presented at trial would reasonably support both an acquittal on the crime charged and a conviction upon the lesser included offense.” State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213 , 533 N.E.2d 286 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Kidder (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 279 , 513 N.E.2d 311 . {¶ 81} During trial, the defense argued for an involuntary manslaughter instruction on Count 5 because of evidence that Lynch wanted to make Love stop crying but did not purposely kill her. 2003A charge on a “lesser included offense is required only where the evidence presented at trial would reasonably support both an acquittal on the crime charged and a conviction upon the lesser included offense.” State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213 , 533 N.E.2d 286 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Kidder (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 279 , 513 N.E.2d 311 . {¶ 81} During trial, the defense argued for an involuntary manslaughter instruction on Count 5 because of evidence that Lynch wanted to make Love stop crying but did not purposely kill her. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.