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.
23 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1983–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc.green2 sentences2013Statutory immunity was instituted in response to the Ohio Supreme Court’s abrogation of judicially 14 created municipal sovereign immunity in Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc., 2 Ohio St.3d 26 , 442 N.E.2d 749 (1982), holding in paragraph two of the syllabus: “The defense of sovereign immunity is not available, in the absence of a statute providing immunity, to a municipal corporation * * *.” The legislature soon enacted the immunity statute in 1985, generally defining when political subdivisions are immune from suit. 2013Statutory immunity was instituted in response to the Ohio Supreme Court’s abrogation of judicially 14 created municipal sovereign immunity in Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc., 2 Ohio St.3d 26 , 442 N.E.2d 749 (1982), holding in paragraph two of the syllabus: “The defense of sovereign immunity is not available, in the absence of a statute providing immunity, to a municipal corporation * * *.” The legislature soon enacted the immunity statute in 1985, generally defining when political subdivisions are immune from suit. | 1 | 15 |
Strohofer v. City of Cincinnatigreen2 sentences2000Strohofer, 6 Ohio St.3d 118 , 6 OBR 178, 451 N.E.2d 787 , syllabus (holding that ”[i]n the absence of a statute providing immunity, the defense of sovereign immunity is not available to a municipal corporation in an action for damages alleged to be caused by the tortious conduct of the municipality”). 2000Strohofer, 6 Ohio St.3d 118 , 6 OBR 178, 451 N.E.2d 787 , syllabus (holding that ”[i]n the absence of a statute providing immunity, the defense of sovereign immunity is not available to a municipal corporation in an action for damages alleged to be caused by the tortious conduct of the municipality”). | 1 | 7 |
O'Toole v. Denihangreen2 sentences2022See O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 , 2008-Ohio-2574 , 889 N.E.2d 505, ¶ 75 . 2022See O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 , 2008-Ohio-2574 , 889 N.E.2d 505, ¶ 75 . | 1 | 1 |
Burnett v. Ricegreen2 sentences1998See, also, Burnett v. Rice (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 44, 46 , 529 N.E.2d 203, 205-206 (imposition of strict liability under R.C. 951.02 “would conflict directly with the plain language” of the statute providing that a violation of that section is only prima facie evidence of an offense; such language “creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence when an animal is at large”). 1998See, also, Burnett v. Rice (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 44, 46 , 529 N.E.2d 203, 205-206 (imposition of strict liability under R.C. 951.02 “would conflict directly with the plain language” of the statute providing that a violation of that section is only prima facie evidence of an offense; such language “creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence when an animal is at large”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Marysville v. Foreman
green
1 sentence2005A trial court does not need to accept a withdrawal of a jury trial waiver if it is not made "in a reasonable time under the circumstances." Marysville v. Foreman (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 118 , 123 . {¶ 18} "R.C. 2945.05 provides that a waiver of a jury trial may be withdrawn by a defendant at any time before the commencement of a trial. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Haas v. Hayslip
red
2 sentences2001Brown’s dissent in Haas, 51 Ohio St.2d at 140-145 , 5 O.O.3d at 113-116 , 364 N.E.2d at 1379-1382 , and the analysis of Justice Gibson’s concurrence in Hack, 174 Ohio St. at 391-402, 23 O.O.2d at 38-45, 189 N.E.2d at 862-869, wherein it was essentially argued that municipal immunity has no rational justification in the common law of this country. {¶ 42} Although the court found no justification for sovereign immunity for municipalities, it went on to state, “We hold that the defense of sovereign immunity is not available, in the absence of a statute providing immunity, to a municipal corporati 2001Brown’s dissent in Haas, 51 Ohio St.2d at 140-145 , 5 O.O.3d at 113-116 , 364 N.E.2d at 1379-1382 , and the analysis of Justice Gibson’s concurrence in Hack, 174 Ohio St. at 391-402, 23 O.O.2d at 38-45, 189 N.E.2d at 862-869, wherein it was essentially argued that municipal immunity has no rational justification in the common law of this country. {¶ 42} Although the court found no justification for sovereign immunity for municipalities, it went on to state, “We hold that the defense of sovereign immunity is not available, in the absence of a statute providing immunity, to a municipal corporati | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Gabris v. Blake
green
1 sentence1990Hutchinson v. Lakewood (1932), 125 Ohio St. 100 ; Crisafi v. Cleveland (1959), 169 Ohio St. 137 ; Gabris v. Blake (1967), 9 Ohio St. 2d 71 . ***" *586 The Ohio Supreme Court in Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc. (1982), 2 Ohio St. 3d 26 , abrogated the judicially created sovereign immunity (which was not absolute to begin with), holding in paragraph two of the syllabus: "The defense of sovereign immunity is not available, in the absence of a statute providing immunity, to a municipal corporation ***." In 1983, this holding was defined in Enghauser Mfg. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Enghauser Manufacturing Co. v. Eriksson Engineering Ltd.
green
1 sentence1990Co. v. Eriksson Engineering Ltd. (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 31 , which held in paragraph one of the syllabus: "The judicially created doctrine of municipal immunity is, within certain limits, abolished, thereby rendering municipal corporations subject to suit for damages by individuals injured by the negligence or wrongful acts or omission of their agents or employees whether such agents and employees are engaged in proprietary or governmental functions. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Hutchinson v. City of Lakewood
green
1 sentence1990Hutchinson v. Lakewood (1932), 125 Ohio St. 100 ; Crisafi v. Cleveland (1959), 169 Ohio St. 137 ; Gabris v. Blake (1967), 9 Ohio St. 2d 71 . ***" *586 The Ohio Supreme Court in Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc. (1982), 2 Ohio St. 3d 26 , abrogated the judicially created sovereign immunity (which was not absolute to begin with), holding in paragraph two of the syllabus: "The defense of sovereign immunity is not available, in the absence of a statute providing immunity, to a municipal corporation ***." In 1983, this holding was defined in Enghauser Mfg. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.