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.
25 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Norman v. Kellie Auto Sales, Inc.green2 sentences2023“When presented with an application for reconsideration * * *, an appellate court must determine whether the application calls to the court’s attention an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been.” Norman v. Kellie Auto Sales, Inc., 2020-Ohio-6953 , 165 N.E.3d 805, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.), aff'd, 167 Ohio St.3d 151 , 2022-Ohio-1198 , 189 N.E.3d 784 . 2023“When presented with an application for reconsideration * * *, an appellate court must determine whether the application calls to the court’s attention an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been.” Norman v. Kellie Auto Sales, Inc., 2020-Ohio-6953 , 165 N.E.3d 805, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.), aff'd, 167 Ohio St.3d 151 , 2022-Ohio-1198 , 189 N.E.3d 784 . | 2 | 2 |
Matthews v. Matthewsgreen2 sentences2020Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Edn., 10th Dist. No. 17AP-767, 2019-Ohio-1540, ¶ 3 , State v. Wade, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-644, 2008-Ohio-1797, ¶ 2 , discretionary appeal not allowed, 119 Ohio St.3d 1415 , 2008-Ohio-3880 , cert. denied, Ohio v. Wade, 555 U.S. 1126 (2009), Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140 (10th Dist.1981). 2020Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Edn., 10th Dist. No. 17AP-767, 2019- Ohio-1540, ¶ 3; State v. Wade, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-644, 2008-Ohio-1797, ¶ 2 , discretionary appeal not allowed, 119 Ohio St.3d 1415 , 2008-Ohio-3880 , cert. denied, Ohio v. Wade, 555 U.S. 1126 (2009); Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140 (10th Dist.1981). | 1 | 11 |
City of Columbus v. Hodgegreen2 sentences2026WWSD, L.L.C. v. Woods, 2023-Ohio-3174, ¶ 2 (10th Dist.); Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68, 69 (10th Dist. 1987). 2008Columbus v. Hodge (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 68 , citing Matthews v. Matthews (1981), 5 Ohio App.3d 140 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 10 |
WWSD, L.L.C. v. Woodsgreen1 sentence2026WWSD, L.L.C. v. Woods, 2023-Ohio-3174, ¶ 2 (10th Dist.); Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68, 69 (10th Dist. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Erzurum v. Erzurumgreen1 sentence2022Erzurum v. Erzurum, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 20 MA 0012, 2021-Ohio-2014, ¶ 4 ("The test generally applied is whether the motion for reconsideration calls to the attention of the court an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue for our consideration that was either not at all or was not fully considered by us when it should have been"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Norman v. Kellie Auto Sales, Inc. (Slip Opinion)
neutral
2 sentences2023“When presented with an application for reconsideration * * *, an appellate court must determine whether the application calls to the court’s attention an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been.” Norman v. Kellie Auto Sales, Inc., 2020-Ohio-6953 , 165 N.E.3d 805, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.), aff'd, 167 Ohio St.3d 151 , 2022-Ohio-1198 , 189 N.E.3d 784 . 2023“When presented with an application for reconsideration * * *, an appellate court must determine whether the application calls to the court’s attention an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been.” Norman v. Kellie Auto Sales, Inc., 2020-Ohio-6953 , 165 N.E.3d 805, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.), aff'd, 167 Ohio St.3d 151 , 2022-Ohio-1198 , 189 N.E.3d 784 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Ivaldy v. Loral Space & Communications Ltd.
green
2 sentences2020Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Edn., 10th Dist. No. 17AP-767, 2019-Ohio-1540, ¶ 3 , State v. Wade, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-644, 2008-Ohio-1797, ¶ 2 , discretionary appeal not allowed, 119 Ohio St.3d 1415 , 2008-Ohio-3880 , cert. denied, Ohio v. Wade, 555 U.S. 1126 (2009), Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140 (10th Dist.1981). 2020Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Edn., 10th Dist. No. 17AP-767, 2019- Ohio-1540, ¶ 3; State v. Wade, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-644, 2008-Ohio-1797, ¶ 2 , discretionary appeal not allowed, 119 Ohio St.3d 1415 , 2008-Ohio-3880 , cert. denied, Ohio v. Wade, 555 U.S. 1126 (2009); Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140 (10th Dist.1981). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Wade, 06ap-644 (4-15-2008)
green
2 sentences2020Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Edn., 10th Dist. No. 17AP-767, 2019-Ohio-1540, ¶ 3 , State v. Wade, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-644, 2008-Ohio-1797, ¶ 2 , discretionary appeal not allowed, 119 Ohio St.3d 1415 , 2008-Ohio-3880 , cert. denied, Ohio v. Wade, 555 U.S. 1126 (2009), Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140 (10th Dist.1981). 2020Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Edn., 10th Dist. No. 17AP-767, 2019- Ohio-1540, ¶ 3; State v. Wade, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-644, 2008-Ohio-1797, ¶ 2 , discretionary appeal not allowed, 119 Ohio St.3d 1415 , 2008-Ohio-3880 , cert. denied, Ohio v. Wade, 555 U.S. 1126 (2009); Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140 (10th Dist.1981). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Carpenter v. Carpenter
neutral
2 sentences2023Belmont No. 21 BE 0049, 2023-Ohio-1496, ¶ 4 . {¶4} “A panel could conceivably make any number of obvious errors justifying reconsideration including a factual error, a procedural error, or an error of law.” Id. 2023Belmont No. 21 BE 0049, 2023-Ohio-1496, ¶ 4 . {¶4} “A panel could conceivably make any number of obvious errors justifying reconsideration including a factual error, a procedural error, or an error of law.” Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Bd. of Edn.
green
1 sentence2020Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Edn., 10th Dist. No. 17AP-767, 2019-Ohio-1540, ¶ 3 , State v. Wade, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-644, 2008-Ohio-1797, ¶ 2 , discretionary appeal not allowed, 119 Ohio St.3d 1415 , 2008-Ohio-3880 , cert. denied, Ohio v. Wade, 555 U.S. 1126 (2009), Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140 (10th Dist.1981). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Grabill v. Worthington Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000Grabill v. Worthington Industries, Inc. (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 469 , 471 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |