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 2001–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Menkhausgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Menkhaus, 2016-Ohio-550, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
O'Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp.green1 sentence2009See id. {¶ 33} Furthermore, Olivia’s and Audrey’s claims against Miles are not barred under the doctrine of res judicata since Olivia and Audrey were not made parties to the Clermont County action, nor were they “in privity” with any named party in that action, including Fender, since privity generally does not arise out of the parent-child relationship, see O’Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio St.3d 59 , 2007-Ohio-1102 , 862 N.E.2d 803 , ¶ 10, citing Johnson v. Norman (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 186, 190-191 , 20 O.O.3d 196 , 421 N.E.2d 124 , especially when the interests of the parent and c | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Normangreen2 sentences2009See id. {¶ 33} Furthermore, Olivia’s and Audrey’s claims against Miles are not barred under the doctrine of res judicata since Olivia and Audrey were not made parties to the Clermont County action, nor were they “in privity” with any named party in that action, including Fender, since privity generally does not arise out of the parent-child relationship, see O’Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio St.3d 59 , 2007-Ohio-1102 , 862 N.E.2d 803 , ¶ 10, citing Johnson v. Norman (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 186, 190-191 , 20 O.O.3d 196 , 421 N.E.2d 124 , especially when the interests of the parent and c 2009See id. {¶ 33} Furthermore, Olivia’s and Audrey’s claims against Miles are not barred under the doctrine of res judicata since Olivia and Audrey were not made parties to the Clermont County action, nor were they “in privity” with any named party in that action, including Fender, since privity generally does not arise out of the parent-child relationship, see O’Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio St.3d 59 , 2007-Ohio-1102 , 862 N.E.2d 803 , ¶ 10, citing Johnson v. Norman (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 186, 190-191 , 20 O.O.3d 196 , 421 N.E.2d 124 , especially when the interests of the parent and c | 1 | 1 |
Adamsky v. Buckeye Local School Districtgreen1 sentence2009See id. {¶ 33} Furthermore, Olivia’s and Audrey’s claims against Miles are not barred under the doctrine of res judicata since Olivia and Audrey were not made parties to the Clermont County action, nor were they “in privity” with any named party in that action, including Fender, since privity generally does not arise out of the parent-child relationship, see O’Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio St.3d 59 , 2007-Ohio-1102 , 862 N.E.2d 803 , ¶ 10, citing Johnson v. Norman (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 186, 190-191 , 20 O.O.3d 196 , 421 N.E.2d 124 , especially when the interests of the parent and c | 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 v. Szefcyk
green
1 sentence2018Preble No. CA2011-08-007, 2012-Ohio-2258 , ¶ 10, citing State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 , 1996-Ohio-337 (1996). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Szefcyk
green
1 sentence2018Preble No. CA2011-08-007, 2012-Ohio-2258 , ¶ 10, citing State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 , 1996-Ohio-337 (1996). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick
green
2 sentences2009Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 476, 483 , 710 N.E.2d 778 . {¶ 34} In this case, Olivia’s and Audrey’s interests were different from Fender’s interest because, unlike Fender, Olivia and Audrey could have recovered against Miles even if she was less than 50 percent responsible for the 2003 accident. 2009Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 476, 483 , 710 N.E.2d 778 . {¶ 34} In this case, Olivia’s and Audrey’s interests were different from Fender’s interest because, unlike Fender, Olivia and Audrey could have recovered against Miles even if she was less than 50 percent responsible for the 2003 accident. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Twyford
green
1 sentence2008Therefore, Hermison's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is barred by the doctrine of res judicata since he could have raised the issue on his direct appeal. *Page 8 {¶ 34} We further acknowledge that "`"[o]nce ineffective assistance of counsel has been raised and adjudicated, res judicata bars its relitigation."'" State v. Twyford , 106 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2005-Ohio-4380 , at ¶ 6 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
City of Cleveland Heights v. Richardson
green
2 sentences2001Cleveland Heights v. Richardson (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 152 , 153 , 9 OBR 218, 458 N.E.2d 901 , 902-03 If we construe McDaniels' motion as one that requests post-conviction relief (R.C. 2953.21 (A)(1)), that request is both untimely (R.C. 2953.21 (A)(2); R.C. 2953.23 ) and subject to the doctrine of res judicata since McDaniels should have pursued the issue upon a direct appeal from the July 9, 1998 judgment of sentence. 2001Cleveland Heights v. Richardson (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 152 , 153 , 9 OBR 218, 458 N.E.2d 901 , 902-03 If we construe McDaniels' motion as one that requests post-conviction relief (R.C. 2953.21 (A)(1)), that request is both untimely (R.C. 2953.21 (A)(2); R.C. 2953.23 ) and subject to the doctrine of res judicata since McDaniels should have pursued the issue upon a direct appeal from the July 9, 1998 judgment of sentence. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Perry
green
2 sentences2001State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175 ; 226 N.E.2d 104 , paragraph nine of the syllabus. 2001State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175 ; 226 N.E.2d 104 , paragraph nine of the syllabus. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.