23 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
VFW Post 8586 v. Ohio Liquor Control Commissiongreen2 sentences2000See VFW Post 8586 v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 79 , 697 N.E.2d 655 . 8 January Term, 2000 {¶ 27} In VFW Post, for example, we determined that in order to find a violation of an administrative rule regarding gambling devices, the Liquor Commission must determine that the gambling devices in question were used to commit one of the gambling offenses listed in the criminal code. 2000See VFW Post 8586 v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 79 , 697 N.E.2d 655 . 8 January Term, 2000 {¶ 27} In VFW Post, for example, we determined that in order to find a violation of an administrative rule regarding gambling devices, the Liquor Commission must determine that the gambling devices in question were used to commit one of the gambling offenses listed in the criminal code. | 3 | 3 |
Chambers v. St. Mary's Schoolgreen2 sentences2016Mary's School, 82 Ohio St.3d 563 , 1998-Ohio-184 , syllabus: "The violation of an administrative rule [building code] does not constitute negligence per se; however, such a violation may be Delaware County, Case No. 15-CAE-10-0078 17 admissible as evidence of negligence." In Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 , 2009-Ohio-2495, ¶ 21 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: While a violation of the Building Code may serve as strong evidence that the condition at issue was dangerous and that the landowner breached the attendant duty of care by not rectifying the problem, the violation 2010Giving administrative agencies the ability to adopt such rules would be tantamount to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, since administrative agencies cannot dictate public policy.” Id. {¶ 22} The violation of an administrative rule may, in some circumstances, be admissible as evidence of negligence, but it does not constitute negligence per se. | 2 | 13 |
Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc.green2 sentences2016Mary's School, 82 Ohio St.3d 563 , 1998-Ohio-184 , syllabus: "The violation of an administrative rule [building code] does not constitute negligence per se; however, such a violation may be Delaware County, Case No. 15-CAE-10-0078 17 admissible as evidence of negligence." In Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 , 2009-Ohio-2495, ¶ 21 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: While a violation of the Building Code may serve as strong evidence that the condition at issue was dangerous and that the landowner breached the attendant duty of care by not rectifying the problem, the violation 2016Mary's School, 82 Ohio St.3d 563 , 1998-Ohio-184 , syllabus: "The violation of an administrative rule [building code] does not constitute negligence per se; however, such a violation may be Delaware County, Case No. 15-CAE-10-0078 17 admissible as evidence of negligence." In Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 , 2009-Ohio-2495, ¶ 21 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: While a violation of the Building Code may serve as strong evidence that the condition at issue was dangerous and that the landowner breached the attendant duty of care by not rectifying the problem, the violation | 1 | 2 |
Kerns Ex Rel. Kerns v. G.A.C., Inc.green2 sentences2007See, also, Kerns, 255 Kan. at 282 , 875 P.2d 949 . {¶ 14} We have not reached the question of what effect, if any, a violation of an administrative rule has on the open-and-obvious doctrine. 2007See, also, Kerns, 255 Kan. at 282 , 875 P.2d 949 . {¶ 14} We have not reached the question of what effect, if any, a violation of an administrative rule has on the open-and-obvious doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chambers v. St. Mary's School
green
2 sentences2016Mary's School, 82 Ohio St.3d 563 , 1998-Ohio-184 , syllabus: "The violation of an administrative rule [building code] does not constitute negligence per se; however, such a violation may be Delaware County, Case No. 15-CAE-10-0078 17 admissible as evidence of negligence." In Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 , 2009-Ohio-2495, ¶ 21 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: While a violation of the Building Code may serve as strong evidence that the condition at issue was dangerous and that the landowner breached the attendant duty of care by not rectifying the problem, the violation 2008Mary's School , 82 Ohio St.3d 563 , 1998-Ohio-184 , in which the Supreme Court held that while the violation of an administrative rule did not constitute negligence per se, it may be admissible as evidence of negligence. | 4 | 2006–2016 |
Stephens v. A-Able Rents Co.
green
2 sentences1998Stephens v. A-Able Rents Co. (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 20, 27-28 , 654 N.E.2d 1315, 1320 . 1998Stephens v. A-Able Rents Co. (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 20, 27-28 , 654 N.E.2d 1315, 1320 . | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Tomasko v. Sohnly
green
1 sentence2023Delaware No. 15-CAE-10-0078, 2016-Ohio-2698 (the violation of an administrative rule does not constitute negligence per se; however, the violation may be admissible as evidence of negligence); Jackson v. Arka Express, Inc., N.D. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Scheetz v. Kentwood, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006To hold that the violation of ADA standards creates an issue of genuine material fact, in effect, is to hold that the violation is evidence of negligence per se. {¶ 42} This court has held that the violation of an administrative rule “may be admissible as evidence of general negligence.” Scheetz, 152 Ohio App.3d 20 , 2003-Ohio-1209 , 786 N.E.2d 501, at ¶ 12 . 2006To hold that the violation of ADA standards creates an issue of genuine material fact, in effect, is to hold that the violation is evidence of negligence per se. {¶ 42} This court has held that the violation of an administrative rule “may be admissible as evidence of general negligence.” Scheetz, 152 Ohio App.3d 20 , 2003-Ohio-1209 , 786 N.E.2d 501, at ¶ 12 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State ex rel. Kleve v. Green Twp. Bd. of Trustees
neutral
1 sentence2006Mary's School, 82 Ohio St.3d 563 , 1998-Ohio-184 , reconsideration denied 83 Ohio St.3d 1453 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that the violation of an administrative rule does not constitute negligence per se; rather, such a violation may be admissible as evidence of negligence. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Pond v. Leslein
green
1 sentence2004Id. at the syllabus. {¶ 29} There is nothing in the record of this case to show that Luckey Farmers failed to comply with the label directions for the specific herbicide sprayed on the farmland west of appellants' property on May 6, 2000. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.