21 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1922–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doyle v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2018On this record, we disagree. {¶ 26} "In Ohio, a driver's license is a privilege, not a constitutionally guaranteed property right." Gurish at ¶ 12 , citing Doyle v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 51 Ohio St.3d 46, 51 (1990). 1996Moreover, the granting of a license is a privilege and not an absolute property right, State v. Williams (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 290 , 667 N.E.2d 932 ; Dobbins v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 533, 538 , 664 N.E.2d 908, 912 ; Doyle v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 46, 51 , 554 N.E.2d 97, 102 , and the temporary loss or suspension of this privilege is an “inconvenience.” Columbus v. Adams (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 57, 60 , 10 OBR 348, 350, 461 N.E.2d 887, 890 . | 1 | 7 |
State v. Alexander, Unpublished Decision (7-15-2004)green1 sentence2025See State v. Alexander, 2004-Ohio-3735, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.) (“[A] motorist has six months to renew an expired license before having to retake the complete driver’s license test, but this does not authorize the operation of a vehicle during that period.”). {¶17} The trial court reasoned similarly to the Kaplysh court in its entry. | 1 | 1 |
Cambridge Village Condominium Ass'n v. Cambridge Condominium Ass'ngreen1 sentence2017As the trial court also found, NPK simply gave appellant a license to use its driveway. {¶20} “A license is a privilege given to an individual to do an act upon the land of another without possessing any interest therein and is usually terminable at the will of the licensor.” (Emphasis added.) Cambridge Village Condominium Assn. v. Cambridge Condominium Assn., 139 Ohio App.3d 328, 333 (11th Dist.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Cornwell v. Hamiltongreen1 sentence2011See Craigmiles v. Giles (C.A.6 2002), 312 F.3d 220 , 222 (finding requirement of funeral director license in order to sell funeral merchandise violated equal protection); Cornwell v. Hamilton (S.D.Cal. 1999), 80 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1103, 1118-1119 (finding that requiring African hair braiders to obtain cosmetology licenses violated equal protection); Merrifield v. Lockyer (C.A.9 2008), 547 F.3d 978, 989-992 (finding that exemptions for nonpesticide pest controllers of certain vertebrates, but not others, violated equal protection even though broad licensing scheme was otherwise constitutional). | 1 | 1 |
Craigmiles v. Gilesgreen1 sentence2011See Craigmiles v. Giles (C.A.6 2002), 312 F.3d 220 , 222 (finding requirement of funeral director license in order to sell funeral merchandise violated equal protection); Cornwell v. Hamilton (S.D.Cal. 1999), 80 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1103, 1118-1119 (finding that requiring African hair braiders to obtain cosmetology licenses violated equal protection); Merrifield v. Lockyer (C.A.9 2008), 547 F.3d 978, 989-992 (finding that exemptions for nonpesticide pest controllers of certain vertebrates, but not others, violated equal protection even though broad licensing scheme was otherwise constitutional). | 1 | 1 |
Merrifield v. Lockyergreen1 sentence2011See Craigmiles v. Giles (C.A.6 2002), 312 F.3d 220 , 222 (finding requirement of funeral director license in order to sell funeral merchandise violated equal protection); Cornwell v. Hamilton (S.D.Cal. 1999), 80 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1103, 1118-1119 (finding that requiring African hair braiders to obtain cosmetology licenses violated equal protection); Merrifield v. Lockyer (C.A.9 2008), 547 F.3d 978, 989-992 (finding that exemptions for nonpesticide pest controllers of certain vertebrates, but not others, violated equal protection even though broad licensing scheme was otherwise constitutional). | 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 Columbus v. Adams
green
2 sentences1996This court has previously labeled the temporary license suspension an “inconvenience,” Columbus v. Adams (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 57, 60 , 10 OBR 348, 350, 461 N.E.2d 887, 890 , and the granting of a license a privilege and not an absolute property right. 1996This court has previously labeled the temporary license suspension an “inconvenience,” Columbus v. Adams (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 57, 60 , 10 OBR 348, 350, 461 N.E.2d 887, 890 , and the granting of a license a privilege and not an absolute property right. | 4 | 1996–1996 |
Dobbins v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences1996Moreover, the granting of a license is a privilege and not an absolute property right, State v. Williams (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 290 , 667 N.E.2d 932 ; Dobbins v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 533, 538 , 664 N.E.2d 908, 912 ; Doyle v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 46, 51 , 554 N.E.2d 97, 102 , and the temporary loss or suspension of this privilege is an “inconvenience.” Columbus v. Adams (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 57, 60 , 10 OBR 348, 350, 461 N.E.2d 887, 890 . 1996Moreover, the granting of a license is a privilege and not an absolute property right, State v. Williams (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 290 , 667 N.E.2d 932 ; Dobbins v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 533, 538 , 664 N.E.2d 908, 912 ; Doyle v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 46, 51 , 554 N.E.2d 97, 102 , and the temporary loss or suspension of this privilege is an “inconvenience.” Columbus v. Adams (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 57, 60 , 10 OBR 348, 350, 461 N.E.2d 887, 890 . | 4 | 1996–1996 |
Mosher v. Cook United, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Mosher v. Cook (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 316 , 317 . 2000Mosher v. Cook (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 316, 317 , 16 O.O.3d 361, 362 , 405 N.E.2d 720, 721 . | 2 | 2000–2009 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences1996Moreover, the granting of a license is a privilege and not an absolute property right, State v. Williams (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 290 , 667 N.E.2d 932 ; Dobbins v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 533, 538 , 664 N.E.2d 908, 912 ; Doyle v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 46, 51 , 554 N.E.2d 97, 102 , and the temporary loss or suspension of this privilege is an “inconvenience.” Columbus v. Adams (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 57, 60 , 10 OBR 348, 350, 461 N.E.2d 887, 890 . 1996Moreover, the granting of a license is a privilege and not an absolute property right, State v. Williams (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 290 , 667 N.E.2d 932 ; Dobbins v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 533, 538 , 664 N.E.2d 908, 912 ; Doyle v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 46, 51 , 554 N.E.2d 97, 102 , and the temporary loss or suspension of this privilege is an “inconvenience.” Columbus v. Adams (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 57, 60 , 10 OBR 348, 350, 461 N.E.2d 887, 890 . | 2 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Jenks
red
1 sentence2012State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 . {¶42} Appellant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), failure to maintain assured clear distance in violation of R.C. 4511.21(A), leaving the scene in violation of R.C. 4549.02, and operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver's license in violation of R.C. 4510.12: {¶43} "[R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)] No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state, if, at the time of the operation, any of the following apply: {¶44} "(a) The person is under the | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Daugherty
green
2 sentences2008State v. Daugherty , 165 Ohio App.3d 115 , 2006-Ohio-240 , ¶ 7 (addressing the trial court's finding of contempt for defendant's failure to perform community service as required by his sentence for a fourth-degree misdemeanor driver's license violation), citing State v. Self , Montgomery App. No. 20370, 2005-Ohio-1120 . 2008State v. Daugherty , 165 Ohio App.3d 115 , 2006-Ohio-240 , ¶ 7 (addressing the trial court's finding of contempt for defendant's failure to perform community service as required by his sentence for a fourth-degree misdemeanor driver's license violation), citing State v. Self , Montgomery App. No. 20370, 2005-Ohio-1120 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Self, Unpublished Decision (3-14-2005)
green
1 sentence2008State v. Daugherty , 165 Ohio App.3d 115 , 2006-Ohio-240 , ¶ 7 (addressing the trial court's finding of contempt for defendant's failure to perform community service as required by his sentence for a fourth-degree misdemeanor driver's license violation), citing State v. Self , Montgomery App. No. 20370, 2005-Ohio-1120 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Lewis
red
1 sentence2008State v. Rance , 85 Ohio St. 3d at 638-639 . {¶ 21} In this case, appellant was convicted of the sales of securities without a license in violation of R.C. 1707.44 (A)(1); making false representations in the sale of securities in violation of R.C. 1707.44 (B)(4); selling unregistered securities in violation of R.C. 1707.44 (C)(1); securities fraud in violation of R.C. 1707.44 (G); and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of R.C. 2923.32 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Long
green
1 sentence2005State v. Long (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 328 , 332 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2001On appeal, Mr. Ferris' appointed counsel advised this Court that he reviewed the record and could discern no meritorious claims for appeal and moved to withdraw as counsel under Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 . 2001On appeal, Mr. Ferris' appointed counsel advised this Court that he reviewed the record and could discern no meritorious claims for appeal and moved to withdraw as counsel under Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Ohio Operating Engineers Apprenticeship Fund v. Kinney
green
2 sentences1997Ohio Operating Engrs., supra, 61 Ohio St.2d at 360 , 15 O.O.3d at 441 , 402 N.E.2d at 512 . 1997Ohio Operating Engrs., supra, 61 Ohio St.2d at 360 , 15 O.O.3d at 441 , 402 N.E.2d at 512 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Church
green
2 sentences1994In Cuyahoga Falls v. Church (1967), 10 O.[hio] App.2d 9 [ 39 O.O.2d 31 ], 225 N.E.2d 274 , the Court held that establishment of a roadblock to check for driver’s licenses does not amount to an illegal search and seizure.” At this juncture, we take this opportunity to comment on the Gaylor decision. 1994In Cuyahoga Falls v. Church (1967), 10 O.[hio] App.2d 9 [ 39 O.O.2d 31 ], 225 N.E.2d 274 , the Court held that establishment of a roadblock to check for driver’s licenses does not amount to an illegal search and seizure.” At this juncture, we take this opportunity to comment on the Gaylor decision. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Newkirk
green
2 sentences1988State v. Newkirk (1968), 21 Ohio App. 2d 160, 165 , 50 O.O. 2d 253, 256, 255 N.E. 2d 851, 854 . 1988State v. Newkirk (1968), 21 Ohio App. 2d 160, 165 , 50 O.O. 2d 253, 256, 255 N.E. 2d 851, 854 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People ex rel. City of Chicago v. Chicago Telephone Co.
green
1 sentence1922City of Chicago, v. Chicago Telephone Co., 220 Ill., 238 , holds as follows: “ The license or privilege of a telephone company to occupy the streets of a city may be questioned by an information in the nature of quo warranto upon the ground that it has been granted improperly or without warrant of law, or that it is so held or exercised.” The supreme court of Florida, in State, ex rel. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.