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.
31 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 16 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 ex rel. Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2012Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Bd. of Edn., 111 Ohio St.3d 568 , 2006-Ohio-5512 , 857 N.E.2d 1148, ¶ 21 (a facial constitutional challenge requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas an as-applied challenge requires clear and convincing evidence). 2012Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Bd. of Edn., 111 Ohio St.3d 568 , 2006-Ohio-5512 , 857 N.E.2d 1148, ¶ 21 (a facial constitutional challenge requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas an as-applied challenge requires clear and convincing evidence). | 1 | 10 |
In re D.C.green1 sentence2026R.C. 2152.17(A)(2)’s mandatory provision applies to all juveniles, regardless of whether the juvenile has prior adjudications. {¶40} K.G. argues that the statute unconstitutionally removes the juvenile court’s discretion to fashion a disposition that serves the purposes of the juvenile sentencing scheme: “to provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children . . ., [and] protect the public interest and safety, hold the 11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS offender accountable for the offender’s actions, restore the victim, and rehabilitate the offender.” See R | 1 | 1 |
Krista v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2026Krista v. Thompson, 2025-Ohio-5566, ¶ 33 (4th Dist.) (“Under the invited-error doctrine, a party may not take advantage of an error that he himself invited or induced the trial court to make.”). {¶69} Furthermore, Richter and Shawnee Ridge argued, and it was conceded at oral argument, that the trial court used the correct legal standard verbally from the bench at the hearing, but did not use the correct legal standard in the subsequent written order. {¶70} The degree of proof required for a facial constitutional challenge like the one here is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1 |
Cappas Karas Invest. v. City of Cleveland, Unpublished Decision (6-2-2005)green2 sentences2025See Cappas & Kara Invest., Inc. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2005-Ohio-2735, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.) (“A facial constitutional challenge to a zoning ordinance is improper in the context of an administrative appeal. . . . [T]he proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance on its face is a declaratory judgment action.”). 2025See Cappas & Kara Invest., Inc. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2005-Ohio-2735, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.) (“A facial constitutional challenge to a zoning ordinance is improper in the context of an administrative appeal. . . . [T]he proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance on its face is a declaratory judgment action.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Delvalliegreen1 sentence2023This is because “the legislature is not required to codify all rules and procedures under the statutory provision but instead can defer to the executive agency's establishment of its own rules or procedures to safeguard constitutional concerns, which -14- must be challenged through the appropriate mechanisms.” State v. Delvallie, 2022- Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536, ¶ 59 (8th Dist.) (en banc), appeal allowed 166 Ohio St.3d 1496 , 2022-Ohio-1485 , 186 N.E.3d 830 . {¶ 27} Although this Court has previously likened the presumptive minimum term hearing as being “akin to the decision to grant or deny pa | 1 | 1 |
Harrold v. Colliergreen2 sentences2022See Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2005-Ohio- 5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165, ¶ 37 . 2022See Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2005-Ohio- 5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165, ¶ 37 . | 1 | 1 |
Angell v. City of Toledogreen2 sentences2022See Angell, 153 Ohio St. 179 , 91 N.E.2d 250 (city ordinance taxing nonresident of city); Hillenmeyer (city tax regulation taxing out-of- state resident who worked in Cleveland two days a year); Willacy, 159 Ohio St.3d 383 , 2020-Ohio-314 , 151 N.E.3d 561 (city ordinance qualifying profits that out-of-state resident made by exercising stock options that arose while she worked in Cleveland as “income” for local-income-tax purposes). 12. {¶ 24} More critically, the taxpayers brought a facial constitutional challenge to Section 29. 2022See Angell, 153 Ohio St. 179 , 91 N.E.2d 250 (city ordinance taxing nonresident of city); Hillenmeyer (city tax regulation taxing out-of- state resident who worked in Cleveland two days a year); Willacy, 159 Ohio St.3d 383 , 2020-Ohio-314 , 151 N.E.3d 561 (city ordinance qualifying profits that out-of-state resident made by exercising stock options that arose while she worked in Cleveland as “income” for local-income-tax purposes). 12. {¶ 24} More critically, the taxpayers brought a facial constitutional challenge to Section 29. | 1 | 1 |
Leon v. Ohio Board of Psychologygreen1 sentence2021Bd. of Ohio, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-261, 2007-Ohio- 5802, ¶ 25 (permitting an appellant to raise a facial constitutional challenge to the statute upon which the medical board relied to revoke his medical license on appeal); Leon v. Ohio Bd. of Psychology, 63 Ohio St.3d 683, 686-87 (1992) (considering argument that the regulation upon which the board relied to revoke the appellant's psychology license was unconstitutionally vague). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Phippsgreen1 sentence2017"To prevail on a constitutional challenge to the statute as applied, the challenger must present clear and convincing evidence of the statute's constitutional defect." Id. {¶ 19} Appellant argues that R.C. 959.13(A)(3) is void for vagueness as applied to him because the statute "fails to give reasonable notice that keeping a dog in a warming car for a short period constitutes criminal behavior, especially when the dog suffers no harm." {¶ 20} A vague statute is one "which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at | 1 | 1 |
Rubinovitz v. Rogatogreen1 sentence2016No. 13 CAE 10 0073, 2014- Ohio-3465, ¶ 66. {¶ 30} Appellant argues on appeal that "in the context of a globally mobile workforce," the taxing statute at issue, "which defines the tax class as one whose liability arises when the options are granted * * * was not and practically could not be administered in [a] manner that was not discriminatory." Appellant contends that such "discrimination arises not from commission but from omission." According to appellant, while "the statute is facially constitutional," appellee "is not enforcing the statute" in instances in which "the costs of collecting i | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mole (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2016While I agree with the majority that the Ohio Constitution can be a document of independent force, to leap to the legal conclusion that Article I, Section 16 provides unique protection to juveniles without analysis of the “protection [that] the United States Supreme Court has provided in its interpretation of’ the Fourteenth Amendment, Arnold at paragraph one of the syllabus, suggests that the majority’s determination is not based on constitutional interpretation but, rather, on its “sense of judicial necessity,” State v. Mole, 149 Ohio St.3d 215 , 2016-Ohio-5124 , 74 N.E.3d 368, ¶ 91 (Kennedy 2016While I agree with the majority that the Ohio Constitution can be a document of independent force, to leap to the legal conclusion that Article I, Section 16 provides unique protection to juveniles without analysis of the “protection [that] the United States Supreme Court has provided in its interpretation of’ the Fourteenth Amendment, Arnold at paragraph one of the syllabus, suggests that the majority’s determination is not based on constitutional interpretation but, rather, on its “sense of judicial necessity,” State v. Mole, 149 Ohio St.3d 215 , 2016-Ohio-5124 , 74 N.E.3d 368, ¶ 91 (Kennedy | 1 | 1 |
| Cleveland Gear Co. v. Limbachgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020Id., citing Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc., 132 Ohio St.3d 167 , 2012-Ohio-2187, ¶ 20 . “‘To prevail on a facial constitutional challenge, the challenger must prove the constitutional defect, using the highest standard of proof, which is also used in criminal cases, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id., quoting State ex rel. 2020Id., citing Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc., 132 Ohio St.3d 167 , 2012-Ohio-2187, ¶ 20 . “‘To prevail on a facial constitutional challenge, the challenger must prove the constitutional defect, using the highest standard of proof, which is also used in criminal cases, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id., quoting State ex rel. | 4 | 2014–2022 |
United States v. Salerno
green
2 sentences2008A facial constitutional challenge requires a party to, "establish that there exists *Page 4 no set of circumstances under which the statute would be valid." Id., citing United States v. Salerno (1987), 481 U.S. 739 , 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 . 2008A facial constitutional challenge requires a party to, "establish that there exists *Page 4 no set of circumstances under which the statute would be valid." Id., citing United States v. Salerno (1987), 481 U.S. 739 , 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 . | 2 | 2008–2023 |
Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Village of Moreland Hills
green
2 sentences2017A facial constitutional challenge posits that “a statute, ordinance, or administrative rule, on its face and under all circumstances, has no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose,” a high standard made all the more difficult to meet because it requires “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc., 132 Ohio St.3d 167 , 2012-Ohio-2187 , 970 N.E.2d 898, ¶ 21 , citing Jaylin Invs., Inc. v. Vill. of Moreland Hills, 107 Ohio St.3d 339 , 2006-Ohio-4 , 839 N.E.2d 903 , ¶ 11; State ex rel. 2017A facial constitutional challenge posits that "a statute, ordinance, or administrative rule, on its face and under all circumstances, has no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose," a high standard made all the more difficult to meet because it requires "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc. , 132 Ohio St.3d 167 , 2012-Ohio-2187 , 970 N.E.2d 898 , ¶ 21, citing Jaylin Invs., Inc. v. Vill. of Moreland Hills , 107 Ohio St.3d 339 , 2006-Ohio-4 , 839 N.E.2d 903 , ¶ 11 ; State ex rel. | 2 | 2017–2022 |
City of Reading v. Public Utilities Commission
green
1 sentence2023Comm. of Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 193 , 2006-Ohio-2181 , 846 N.E.2d 840 , the court held “a facial constitutional challenge to a statute need not first be raised before the [administrative agency]. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Guyton
green
1 sentence2023Hamilton No. C-190657, 2022-Ohio-2962, ¶ 43 , appeal allowed 168 Ohio St.3d 1418 , 2022-Ohio-3752 , 196 N.E.3d 850 (the specific procedural requirements need not be set forth in the language of the statute itself in order to withstand a facial constitutional challenge). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Ohio Public Interest Action Group, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission
green
2 sentences2023Comm., 43 Ohio St.2d 175 , 331 N.E.2d 730 (1975), paragraph four of the syllabus. {¶ 62} Regardless of whether the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” is invoked in considering a facial constitutional challenge, it remains true that [f]acial challenges to the constitutionality of a statute are the most difficult to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the act would be valid. 2023Comm., 43 Ohio St.2d 175 , 331 N.E.2d 730 (1975), paragraph four of the syllabus. {¶ 62} Regardless of whether the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” is invoked in considering a facial constitutional challenge, it remains true that [f]acial challenges to the constitutionality of a statute are the most difficult to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the act would be valid. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Tench
green
2 sentences2022O’Malley v. Collier-Williams, 153 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2018-Ohio- 3154, 108 N.E.3d 1082, ¶ 20 ; State v. Goff, 154 Ohio St.3d 218 , 2018-Ohio-3763 , 113 N.E.3d 490, ¶ 36 ; State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 279 ; State v. Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9 , 2020-Ohio-5584 , 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 151-152 ; State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 , 2020-Ohio-6700 , 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 185-186 . {¶28} Accordingly, Mr. Trimble did not establish a facial constitutional challenge. {¶29} Mr. Trimble’s second assignment of error is without merit. 2022O’Malley v. Collier-Williams, 153 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2018-Ohio- 3154, 108 N.E.3d 1082, ¶ 20 ; State v. Goff, 154 Ohio St.3d 218 , 2018-Ohio-3763 , 113 N.E.3d 490, ¶ 36 ; State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 279 ; State v. Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9 , 2020-Ohio-5584 , 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 151-152 ; State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 , 2020-Ohio-6700 , 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 185-186 . {¶28} Accordingly, Mr. Trimble did not establish a facial constitutional challenge. {¶29} Mr. Trimble’s second assignment of error is without merit. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
The STATE EX REL. O'MALLEY v. COLLIER-WILLIAMS, Judge.
green
2 sentences2022O’Malley v. Collier-Williams, 153 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2018-Ohio- 3154, 108 N.E.3d 1082, ¶ 20 ; State v. Goff, 154 Ohio St.3d 218 , 2018-Ohio-3763 , 113 N.E.3d 490, ¶ 36 ; State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 279 ; State v. Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9 , 2020-Ohio-5584 , 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 151-152 ; State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 , 2020-Ohio-6700 , 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 185-186 . {¶28} Accordingly, Mr. Trimble did not establish a facial constitutional challenge. {¶29} Mr. Trimble’s second assignment of error is without merit. 2022O’Malley v. Collier-Williams, 153 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2018-Ohio- 3154, 108 N.E.3d 1082, ¶ 20 ; State v. Goff, 154 Ohio St.3d 218 , 2018-Ohio-3763 , 113 N.E.3d 490, ¶ 36 ; State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 279 ; State v. Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9 , 2020-Ohio-5584 , 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 151-152 ; State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 , 2020-Ohio-6700 , 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 185-186 . {¶28} Accordingly, Mr. Trimble did not establish a facial constitutional challenge. {¶29} Mr. Trimble’s second assignment of error is without merit. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Goff (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022O’Malley v. Collier-Williams, 153 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2018-Ohio- 3154, 108 N.E.3d 1082, ¶ 20 ; State v. Goff, 154 Ohio St.3d 218 , 2018-Ohio-3763 , 113 N.E.3d 490, ¶ 36 ; State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 279 ; State v. Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9 , 2020-Ohio-5584 , 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 151-152 ; State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 , 2020-Ohio-6700 , 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 185-186 . {¶28} Accordingly, Mr. Trimble did not establish a facial constitutional challenge. {¶29} Mr. Trimble’s second assignment of error is without merit. 2022O’Malley v. Collier-Williams, 153 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2018-Ohio- 3154, 108 N.E.3d 1082, ¶ 20 ; State v. Goff, 154 Ohio St.3d 218 , 2018-Ohio-3763 , 113 N.E.3d 490, ¶ 36 ; State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 279 ; State v. Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9 , 2020-Ohio-5584 , 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 151-152 ; State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 , 2020-Ohio-6700 , 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 185-186 . {¶28} Accordingly, Mr. Trimble did not establish a facial constitutional challenge. {¶29} Mr. Trimble’s second assignment of error is without merit. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Willacy v. Cleveland Bd. of Income Tax Rev. (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022See Angell, 153 Ohio St. 179 , 91 N.E.2d 250 (city ordinance taxing nonresident of city); Hillenmeyer (city tax regulation taxing out-of- state resident who worked in Cleveland two days a year); Willacy, 159 Ohio St.3d 383 , 2020-Ohio-314 , 151 N.E.3d 561 (city ordinance qualifying profits that out-of-state resident made by exercising stock options that arose while she worked in Cleveland as “income” for local-income-tax purposes). 12. {¶ 24} More critically, the taxpayers brought a facial constitutional challenge to Section 29. 2022See Angell, 153 Ohio St. 179 , 91 N.E.2d 250 (city ordinance taxing nonresident of city); Hillenmeyer (city tax regulation taxing out-of- state resident who worked in Cleveland two days a year); Willacy, 159 Ohio St.3d 383 , 2020-Ohio-314 , 151 N.E.3d 561 (city ordinance qualifying profits that out-of-state resident made by exercising stock options that arose while she worked in Cleveland as “income” for local-income-tax purposes). 12. {¶ 24} More critically, the taxpayers brought a facial constitutional challenge to Section 29. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Tench (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2022O’Malley v. Collier-Williams, 153 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2018-Ohio- 3154, 108 N.E.3d 1082, ¶ 20 ; State v. Goff, 154 Ohio St.3d 218 , 2018-Ohio-3763 , 113 N.E.3d 490, ¶ 36 ; State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 279 ; State v. Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9 , 2020-Ohio-5584 , 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 151-152 ; State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 , 2020-Ohio-6700 , 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 185-186 . {¶28} Accordingly, Mr. Trimble did not establish a facial constitutional challenge. {¶29} Mr. Trimble’s second assignment of error is without merit. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson
green
2 sentences2022Arbino, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 , 2007-Ohio-6948, at ¶ 99-104 . {¶127} In Arbino, the Ohio Supreme Court considered a facial constitutional challenge to R.C. 2315.21. 2022Arbino, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 , 2007-Ohio-6948, at ¶ 99-104 . {¶127} In Arbino, the Ohio Supreme Court considered a facial constitutional challenge to R.C. 2315.21. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Grate (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022O’Malley v. Collier-Williams, 153 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2018-Ohio- 3154, 108 N.E.3d 1082, ¶ 20 ; State v. Goff, 154 Ohio St.3d 218 , 2018-Ohio-3763 , 113 N.E.3d 490, ¶ 36 ; State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 279 ; State v. Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9 , 2020-Ohio-5584 , 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 151-152 ; State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 , 2020-Ohio-6700 , 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 185-186 . {¶28} Accordingly, Mr. Trimble did not establish a facial constitutional challenge. {¶29} Mr. Trimble’s second assignment of error is without merit. 2022O’Malley v. Collier-Williams, 153 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2018-Ohio- 3154, 108 N.E.3d 1082, ¶ 20 ; State v. Goff, 154 Ohio St.3d 218 , 2018-Ohio-3763 , 113 N.E.3d 490, ¶ 36 ; State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 279 ; State v. Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9 , 2020-Ohio-5584 , 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 151-152 ; State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 , 2020-Ohio-6700 , 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 185-186 . {¶28} Accordingly, Mr. Trimble did not establish a facial constitutional challenge. {¶29} Mr. Trimble’s second assignment of error is without merit. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Graham (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022O’Malley v. Collier-Williams, 153 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2018-Ohio- 3154, 108 N.E.3d 1082, ¶ 20 ; State v. Goff, 154 Ohio St.3d 218 , 2018-Ohio-3763 , 113 N.E.3d 490, ¶ 36 ; State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 279 ; State v. Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9 , 2020-Ohio-5584 , 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 151-152 ; State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 , 2020-Ohio-6700 , 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 185-186 . {¶28} Accordingly, Mr. Trimble did not establish a facial constitutional challenge. {¶29} Mr. Trimble’s second assignment of error is without merit. 2022O’Malley v. Collier-Williams, 153 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2018-Ohio- 3154, 108 N.E.3d 1082, ¶ 20 ; State v. Goff, 154 Ohio St.3d 218 , 2018-Ohio-3763 , 113 N.E.3d 490, ¶ 36 ; State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 279 ; State v. Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9 , 2020-Ohio-5584 , 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 151-152 ; State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 , 2020-Ohio-6700 , 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 185-186 . {¶28} Accordingly, Mr. Trimble did not establish a facial constitutional challenge. {¶29} Mr. Trimble’s second assignment of error is without merit. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Derakhshan v. State Medical Bd., 07ap-261 (10-30-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2021Bd. of Ohio, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-261, 2007-Ohio-5802 (permitting an appellant to raise, on appeal from the medical board's decision, a facial constitutional challenge to the statute upon which the medical board relied to revoke his medical license). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Simpkins v. Grace Brethren Church of Delaware, Ohio (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2020Id., citing Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc., 132 Ohio St.3d 167 , 2012-Ohio-2187, ¶ 20 . “‘To prevail on a facial constitutional challenge, the challenger must prove the constitutional defect, using the highest standard of proof, which is also used in criminal cases, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id., quoting State ex rel. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Romage
green
2 sentences2016State v. Romage, 138 Ohio St.3d 390 , 2014-Ohio-783 , 7 N.E.3d 1156, ¶ 7 , citing State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31, 43 , 564 N.E.2d 18 (1990), citing State ex rel. 2016State v. Romage, 138 Ohio St.3d 390 , 2014-Ohio-783 , 7 N.E.3d 1156, ¶ 7 , citing State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31, 43 , 564 N.E.2d 18 (1990), citing State ex rel. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Warner
green
2 sentences2016State v. Romage, 138 Ohio St.3d 390 , 2014-Ohio-783 , 7 N.E.3d 1156, ¶ 7 , citing State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31, 43 , 564 N.E.2d 18 (1990), citing State ex rel. 2016State v. Romage, 138 Ohio St.3d 390 , 2014-Ohio-783 , 7 N.E.3d 1156, ¶ 7 , citing State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31, 43 , 564 N.E.2d 18 (1990), citing State ex rel. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
FRC of Kamms Corner, Inc. v. Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals
green
2 sentences2016Accordingly, Knight’s facial challenge will not be addressed by this court in this appeal. {¶27} However, the constitutionality of a statute “as applied” to a particular defendant may be raised in an appeal of an administrative decision in a court of common pleas, “with the court permitting the parties to offer additional evidence.” FRC of Kamms Corner, Inc. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 14 Ohio App.3d 372, 373 , 471 N.E.2d 845 (8th Dist.1984). 2016Accordingly, Knight’s facial challenge will not be addressed by this court in this appeal. {¶27} However, the constitutionality of a statute “as applied” to a particular defendant may be raised in an appeal of an administrative decision in a court of common pleas, “with the court permitting the parties to offer additional evidence.” FRC of Kamms Corner, Inc. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 14 Ohio App.3d 372, 373 , 471 N.E.2d 845 (8th Dist.1984). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Yajnik v. Akron Department of Health, Housing Division neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Belden v. Union Central Life Ins. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| City of Euclid v. Mabel green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Grossman v. City of Cleveland Heights green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| United States v. Allied Oil Corp. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.