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.
28 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Smithgreen2 sentences2026The father in A.W. argued that the mother had not been properly served, and we stated the following in response: “‘Generally, an appellant does not have standing to argue issues affecting another person.’” Dayton Lodge, L.L.C. v. Hoffman, 2013-Ohio-5755, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting Benjamin v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 2006-Ohio-2739 , ¶ 4 (10th Dist.). “‘However, an appellant may “complain of an error committed against a nonappealing party when the error is prejudicial to the rights of the appellant.”’” Id., quoting Benjamin at ¶ 4 , quoting In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 13 (6th Dist. 1991). 2025Father further argues that the parties were never served with the affidavit. {¶ 74} Significantly, Father is complaining of an alleged service error against Mother, not himself. “‘Generally, an appellant does not have standing to argue issues affecting another person.’” Dayton Lodge, L.L.C. v. Hoffman, 2013-Ohio-5755, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting Benjamin v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 2006-Ohio-2739 , ¶ 4 (10th Dist.). “‘However, an appellant may “complain of an error committed against a nonappealing party when the error is prejudicial to the rights of the appellant.”’” Id., quoting Benjamin at ¶ 4 , | 4 | 24 |
In Re Hiattgreen2 sentences2018However, ‘[a]n appealing party may complain of an error committed against a nonappealing party when the error is prejudicial to the rights of the appellant.’” In re Mourey, 4th Dist. [Athens] No. 02CA48, 2003-Ohio-1870 , ¶ 20[, quoting] In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 13 , 601 N.E.2d 45 (6th Dist.1991); In re Hiatt, 86 Ohio App.3d 716, 721 , 621 N.E.2d 1222 (4th Dist.1993). 2018However, ‘[a]n appealing party may complain of an error committed against a nonappealing party when the error is prejudicial to the rights of the appellant.’” In re Mourey, 4th Dist. [Athens] No. 02CA48, 2003-Ohio-1870 , ¶ 20[, quoting] In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 13 , 601 N.E.2d 45 (6th Dist.1991); In re Hiatt, 86 Ohio App.3d 716, 721 , 621 N.E.2d 1222 (4th Dist.1993). | 2 | 9 |
Dayton Lodge, L.L.C. v. Hoffmangreen2 sentences2026The father in A.W. argued that the mother had not been properly served, and we stated the following in response: “‘Generally, an appellant does not have standing to argue issues affecting another person.’” Dayton Lodge, L.L.C. v. Hoffman, 2013-Ohio-5755, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting Benjamin v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 2006-Ohio-2739 , ¶ 4 (10th Dist.). “‘However, an appellant may “complain of an error committed against a nonappealing party when the error is prejudicial to the rights of the appellant.”’” Id., quoting Benjamin at ¶ 4 , quoting In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 13 (6th Dist. 1991). 2025Father further argues that the parties were never served with the affidavit. {¶ 74} Significantly, Father is complaining of an alleged service error against Mother, not himself. “‘Generally, an appellant does not have standing to argue issues affecting another person.’” Dayton Lodge, L.L.C. v. Hoffman, 2013-Ohio-5755, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting Benjamin v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 2006-Ohio-2739 , ¶ 4 (10th Dist.). “‘However, an appellant may “complain of an error committed against a nonappealing party when the error is prejudicial to the rights of the appellant.”’” Id., quoting Benjamin at ¶ 4 , | 2 | 2 |
In re Z.C.green1 sentence2025See In re C.M., 2017-Ohio-9037 , ¶¶ 48-51 (4th Dist.) Highland App. No. 24CA17 9 E.g., In re B.E., 2014-Ohio-3178, ¶ 27 (4th Dist.); In re R.S., 2013-Ohio-5569, ¶ 29 (4th Dist.); accord In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 18 . | 1 | 1 |
In re B.E.green1 sentence2025See In re C.M., 2017-Ohio-9037 , ¶¶ 48-51 (4th Dist.) Highland App. No. 24CA17 9 E.g., In re B.E., 2014-Ohio-3178, ¶ 27 (4th Dist.); In re R.S., 2013-Ohio-5569, ¶ 29 (4th Dist.); accord In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 18 . | 1 | 1 |
In re R.S.green1 sentence2025See In re C.M., 2017-Ohio-9037 , ¶¶ 48-51 (4th Dist.) Highland App. No. 24CA17 9 E.g., In re B.E., 2014-Ohio-3178, ¶ 27 (4th Dist.); In re R.S., 2013-Ohio-5569, ¶ 29 (4th Dist.); accord In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 18 . | 1 | 1 |
C.B. v. K.R.green1 sentence2024See Moore v. City of Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2012-Ohio-3897 , 975 N.E.2d 977 ; In re Mourey, 2003-Ohio-1870 , ¶ 20. (4th Dist.) (“a party cannot appeal an alleged violation of another party's rights”); In the Matter of K.C., 2016-Ohio-3229 (7th Dist.) ¶ 12; C.B. v. K.R., 2019-Ohio-3621, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.). {¶ 54} While "[a]n appealing party may complain of an error committed against a nonappealing party when the error is prejudicial to the rights of the appellant," Clark has failed to explain how the no-contact order is prejudicial to her. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. City of Middletowngreen2 sentences2024See Moore v. City of Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2012-Ohio-3897 , 975 N.E.2d 977 ; In re Mourey, 2003-Ohio-1870 , ¶ 20. (4th Dist.) (“a party cannot appeal an alleged violation of another party's rights”); In the Matter of K.C., 2016-Ohio-3229 (7th Dist.) ¶ 12; C.B. v. K.R., 2019-Ohio-3621, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.). {¶ 54} While "[a]n appealing party may complain of an error committed against a nonappealing party when the error is prejudicial to the rights of the appellant," Clark has failed to explain how the no-contact order is prejudicial to her. 2024See Moore v. City of Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2012-Ohio-3897 , 975 N.E.2d 977 ; In re Mourey, 2003-Ohio-1870 , ¶ 20. (4th Dist.) (“a party cannot appeal an alleged violation of another party's rights”); In the Matter of K.C., 2016-Ohio-3229 (7th Dist.) ¶ 12; C.B. v. K.R., 2019-Ohio-3621, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.). {¶ 54} While "[a]n appealing party may complain of an error committed against a nonappealing party when the error is prejudicial to the rights of the appellant," Clark has failed to explain how the no-contact order is prejudicial to her. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Johnson, Unpublished Decision (7-22-2004)green1 sentence2008See In re Johnson , Franklin App. No. 03AP-1264, 2004-Ohio-3886 , at ¶ 12 , appeal not allowed, 103 Ohio St.3d 1465 , 2004-Ohio-5056 , reconsideration denied, 104 Ohio St.3d 1412 , 2004-Ohio-6364 , citing State v. Ward (Sept. 21, 1988), Summit App. No. 13462 (stating that "[a]n appealing party may complain of an error committed against a nonappealing party when the error is prejudicial to the rights of the appellant"); see, also, In re Thornburg (Jan. 26, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-466, dismissed, appeal not allowed, 85 Ohio St.3d 1477 , citing State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re KC
neutral
1 sentence2024See Moore v. City of Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2012-Ohio-3897 , 975 N.E.2d 977 ; In re Mourey, 2003-Ohio-1870 , ¶ 20. (4th Dist.) (“a party cannot appeal an alleged violation of another party's rights”); In the Matter of K.C., 2016-Ohio-3229 (7th Dist.) ¶ 12; C.B. v. K.R., 2019-Ohio-3621, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.). {¶ 54} While "[a]n appealing party may complain of an error committed against a nonappealing party when the error is prejudicial to the rights of the appellant," Clark has failed to explain how the no-contact order is prejudicial to her. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Hitchcock
green
2 sentences2006In re E.S.B ., Cuyahoga App. Nos. 87669, 87673, 2006-Ohio-5002 , ¶ 5 , citing In re Hitchcock (1996), 120 Ohio App.3d 88 , 99-100 , 696 N.E.2d 1090 . 2006In re E.S.B ., Cuyahoga App. Nos. 87669, 87673, 2006-Ohio-5002 , ¶ 5 , citing In re Hitchcock (1996), 120 Ohio App.3d 88 , 99-100 , 696 N.E.2d 1090 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re E.S.B., Unpublished Decision (9-28-2006)
neutral
1 sentence2006In re E.S.B ., Cuyahoga App. Nos. 87669, 87673, 2006-Ohio-5002 , ¶ 5 , citing In re Hitchcock (1996), 120 Ohio App.3d 88 , 99-100 , 696 N.E.2d 1090 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.