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.
21 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Braatz v. Braatzgreen2 sentences2026In re E.R., 2022-Ohio-3658, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), citing Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40, 45 (1999). 2025When revising a parenting time schedule, the trial court considers the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.051 and determines a schedule “that is in the best interest of the child.” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 3 |
In re E.R.green1 sentence2026In re E.R., 2022-Ohio-3658, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), citing Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40, 45 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Malloygreen1 sentence2026“It is to be expected, however, that most instances of abuse of discretion will result in decisions that are simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary.” State v. Malloy, 2012-Ohio-2664, ¶ 24 (2d Dist.). {¶ 11} When modifying parenting time, a trial court considers the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.051(D) and then determines, using its sound discretion, the parenting schedule in the best interest of the children. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wagnergreen1 sentence2025State v. Wagner, 2021-Ohio-1671, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. O'Neillgreen1 sentence2024“If during the in camera review, the court determines that any of the records ‘are privileged or constitutionally protected, the court shall balance the victim’s rights and privileges against the constitutional rights of the defendant.’” State v. O’Neill, 2024-Ohio-485, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.), quoting R.C. 2930.071(A)(4). | 1 | 1 |
Jurko v. Jobs Europe Agencygreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Jurko v. Jobs Europe Agency, 43 Ohio App.2d 79, 85 , 334 N.E.2d 478, 482 (8th Dist.1975) (“When a court considers a challenge to its jurisdiction over a defendant-a defense which may require the taking of extensive evidence-the court may hear the matter on affidavits, deposition, interrogatories, or receive oral testimony, as matters of jurisdiction are very often not apparent on the face of the summons or complaint.”). 14. (2) whether the exercise of jurisdiction would deprive the nonresident defendant of the right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United 2020See, e.g., Jurko v. Jobs Europe Agency, 43 Ohio App.2d 79, 85 , 334 N.E.2d 478, 482 (8th Dist.1975) (“When a court considers a challenge to its jurisdiction over a defendant-a defense which may require the taking of extensive evidence-the court may hear the matter on affidavits, deposition, interrogatories, or receive oral testimony, as matters of jurisdiction are very often not apparent on the face of the summons or complaint.”). 14. (2) whether the exercise of jurisdiction would deprive the nonresident defendant of the right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United | 1 | 1 |
Marker v. Grimmgreen2 sentences2001Additionally, the court must journalize the “amount of child support calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule and pursuant to the applicable worksheet * * * its determination that that amount would be unjust or inappropriate and would not be in the best interest of the child, and findings of fact supporting that determination.” R.C. 3113.215(B)(2)(c)(ii); see, also, Marker v. Grimm (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 139 , 601 N.E.2d 496 , paragraph three of the syllabus. 2001Additionally, the court must journalize the “amount of child support calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule and pursuant to the applicable worksheet * * * its determination that that amount would be unjust or inappropriate and would not be in the best interest of the child, and findings of fact supporting that determination.” R.C. 3113.215(B)(2)(c)(ii); see, also, Marker v. Grimm (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 139 , 601 N.E.2d 496 , paragraph three of the syllabus. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Manson v. Brathwaite
green
2 sentences2011In determining the reliability of the identification under the circumstances, the court considers factors such as “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation.” Manson, 432 U.S. at 114 , citing Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 . 2007In determining the reliability of the identification, the court considers factors such as "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation." Manson v. Brathwaite (1977), 432 U.S. 98 , 114 . | 3 | 2007–2011 |
Neil v. Biggers
green
2 sentences2011In determining the reliability of the identification under the circumstances, the court considers factors such as “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation.” Manson, 432 U.S. at 114 , citing Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 . 2007In determining the reliability of the identification, the court considers factors such as "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation." Neil , supra, at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite (1977), 432 U.S. 98 , 114 . | 2 | 2007–2011 |
State v. Sims
green
2 sentences2024An abuse of discretion occurs when “a court exercis[es] its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 , 2021-Ohio-3304 , 187 N.E.3d 463, ¶ 35 . {¶6} This court considers the factors set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995), overruled on other grounds, State v. Sims, 2017-Ohio-8379 , 99 N.E.3d 1056 (1st Dist.), when reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. 2024An abuse of discretion occurs when “a court exercis[es] its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 , 2021-Ohio-3304 , 187 N.E.3d 463, ¶ 35 . {¶6} This court considers the factors set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995), overruled on other grounds, State v. Sims, 2017-Ohio-8379 , 99 N.E.3d 1056 (1st Dist.), when reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Bryant
green
2 sentences2024State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250 , 2022-Ohio-1878 , 198 N.E.3d 68, ¶ 21 . 2024State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250 , 2022-Ohio-1878 , 198 N.E.3d 68, ¶ 21 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Fish
green
2 sentences2024An abuse of discretion occurs when “a court exercis[es] its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 , 2021-Ohio-3304 , 187 N.E.3d 463, ¶ 35 . {¶6} This court considers the factors set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995), overruled on other grounds, State v. Sims, 2017-Ohio-8379 , 99 N.E.3d 1056 (1st Dist.), when reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. 2024An abuse of discretion occurs when “a court exercis[es] its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 , 2021-Ohio-3304 , 187 N.E.3d 463, ¶ 35 . {¶6} This court considers the factors set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995), overruled on other grounds, State v. Sims, 2017-Ohio-8379 , 99 N.E.3d 1056 (1st Dist.), when reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2024An abuse of discretion occurs when “a court exercis[es] its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 , 2021-Ohio-3304 , 187 N.E.3d 463, ¶ 35 . {¶6} This court considers the factors set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995), overruled on other grounds, State v. Sims, 2017-Ohio-8379 , 99 N.E.3d 1056 (1st Dist.), when reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. 2024An abuse of discretion occurs when “a court exercis[es] its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 , 2021-Ohio-3304 , 187 N.E.3d 463, ¶ 35 . {¶6} This court considers the factors set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995), overruled on other grounds, State v. Sims, 2017-Ohio-8379 , 99 N.E.3d 1056 (1st Dist.), when reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Dahlhausen v. Aldred
green
1 sentence2022Where a court considers a challenge to personal jurisdiction without holding an evidentiary hearing, "a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction and the trial court must view the allegations in the pleadings and documentary evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, resolving all reasonable competing inferences in its favor." Id., citing Booth v. Watershed Wellness Ctr., 12th Dist. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Booth v. Watershed Wellness Ctr.
green
1 sentence2022Butler No. CA2013-04-065, 2013-Ohio-5272, ¶ 7 . {¶16} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that the requirement of personal jurisdiction under Ohio law is a waivable right and parties may consent to jurisdiction -5- Clermont CA2021-10-059 through a forum selection clause. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re D.A.
green
1 sentence2021In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 , 2007-Ohio-1105 , ¶ 17. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Thompkins
red
2 sentences2020State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). {¶21} The state’s theory of the case showed that Robinson and Kim solved their own crime. 2020State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). {¶21} The state’s theory of the case showed that Robinson and Kim solved their own crime. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State ex rel. Carpenter v. Jones
green
1 sentence2020Ptnshp. v. Mr. K’s Foods, Inc., 68 Ohio St.3d 181, 183-184 , 624 N.E.2d 1048 (1994). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
U.S. Sprint Communications Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Mr. K's Foods, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Ptnshp. v. Mr. K’s Foods, Inc., 68 Ohio St.3d 181, 183-184 , 624 N.E.2d 1048 (1994). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Neville v. Neville
green
1 sentence2019Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3d 275 , 2003-Ohio-3624 , 791 N.E.2d 434 , ¶ 11; Strauss v. Strauss, 8th Dist. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2017To evaluate procedural unconscionability, this Court considers factors bearing directly on the relative bargaining position of the parties such as "age, education, intelligence, business acumen, experience in similar transactions, whether the terms were explained to the weaker party, and who drafted the contract." Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co. , 157 Ohio App.3d 150 , 2004-Ohio-829 , 809 N.E.2d 1161 , ¶ 31 (9th Dist.). 2017To evaluate procedural unconscionability, this Court considers factors bearing directly on the relative bargaining position of the parties such as "age, education, intelligence, business acumen, experience in similar transactions, whether the terms were explained to the weaker party, and who drafted the contract." Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co. , 157 Ohio App.3d 150 , 2004-Ohio-829 , 809 N.E.2d 1161 , ¶ 31 (9th Dist.). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Kent v. United States
green
1 sentence2014Lee, supra. {¶53} Appellant argues his due process rights were violated because Ohio’s bindover statutes do not provide for an amenability hearing at which the court considers the factors set forth in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966), before the juvenile court orders a bindover. {¶54} In Kent, the District of Columbia’s bindover statute provided that the juvenile court may waive its jurisdiction over the juvenile, but did not provide any definitive bindover procedures. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Chester Patterson v. Barry Mintzes
green
1 sentence2011Patterson, 717 F.2d at 289 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Williams v. Williams
green
1 sentence2001In Williams, we announced that “[a] disabled parent is entitled to a full credit in his or her child support obligation for Social Security payments received by a minor child due to the parent’s disability.” Id., 88 Ohio St.3d 441 , 727 N.E.2d 895 , syllabus. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Blakemore v. Blakemore
green
1 sentence2000Blakemore v. Blakemore (1993), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 218-19 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.