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 1922–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gap, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurancegreen1 sentence2025Co., 11 A.D.3d 108, 112 (N.Y.App.Div. 2004), citing Postner and Rubin, New York Construction Law Manual, § 10.06, at 380 (“‘The principal distinction between liability and property insurance is that liability insurance covers one’s liability to others for bodily injury or property damage, while property insurance covers damage to one’s own property.’” (Emphasis sic.)). {¶37} The classification codes, “Churches Or Other Houses Of Worship” and 13 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS “Buildings Or Premises - Bank Or Office - Mercantile Or Manufacturing (Lessor’s Risk Only),” are not found in the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sagegreen2 sentences2020See State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 182 , 510 N.E.2d 343 (1987). 2020See State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 182 , 510 N.E.2d 343 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompkinsred1 sentence2018Further, Norma and Charles argue that -4- Case No. 7-18-01 to 7-18-18 the trial court’s determination that they are storing scrap metal on the Property is against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶6} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must examine the entire record, “‘weigh[ ] the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider[ ] the credibility of witnesses and determine[ ] whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martingreen1 sentence2018Further, Norma and Charles argue that -4- Case No. 7-18-01 to 7-18-18 the trial court’s determination that they are storing scrap metal on the Property is against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶6} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must examine the entire record, “‘weigh[ ] the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider[ ] the credibility of witnesses and determine[ ] whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. City of Columbusgreen2 sentences2008See Schafer v. RMS Realty (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 244, 300 , 741 N.E.2d 155 , citing AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 , 553 N.E.2d 597 (“Decisions are unreasonable if they are not supported by a sound reasoning process”). {¶ 51} In Jackson v. Columbus (1974), 41 Ohio App.2d 90 , 70 O.O.2d 92 , 322 N. E.2d 283 , the Tenth District Court of Appeals noted: {¶ 52} “[T]he one who has destroyed the property under a claim of right, in order to abate a public nuisance, must allege and prove ‘that what he destroyed was a public nuisance 2008See Schafer v. RMS Realty (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 244, 300 , 741 N.E.2d 155 , citing AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 , 553 N.E.2d 597 (“Decisions are unreasonable if they are not supported by a sound reasoning process”). {¶ 51} In Jackson v. Columbus (1974), 41 Ohio App.2d 90 , 70 O.O.2d 92 , 322 N. E.2d 283 , the Tenth District Court of Appeals noted: {¶ 52} “[T]he one who has destroyed the property under a claim of right, in order to abate a public nuisance, must allege and prove ‘that what he destroyed was a public nuisance | 1 | 1 |
AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp.green1 sentence2008See Schafer v. RMS Realty (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 244, 300 , 741 N.E.2d 155 , citing AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 , 553 N.E.2d 597 (“Decisions are unreasonable if they are not supported by a sound reasoning process”). {¶ 51} In Jackson v. Columbus (1974), 41 Ohio App.2d 90 , 70 O.O.2d 92 , 322 N. E.2d 283 , the Tenth District Court of Appeals noted: {¶ 52} “[T]he one who has destroyed the property under a claim of right, in order to abate a public nuisance, must allege and prove ‘that what he destroyed was a public nuisance | 1 | 1 |
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Michaelsgreen1 sentence2008See Schafer v. RMS Realty (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 244, 300 , 741 N.E.2d 155 , citing AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 , 553 N.E.2d 597 (“Decisions are unreasonable if they are not supported by a sound reasoning process”). {¶ 51} In Jackson v. Columbus (1974), 41 Ohio App.2d 90 , 70 O.O.2d 92 , 322 N. E.2d 283 , the Tenth District Court of Appeals noted: {¶ 52} “[T]he one who has destroyed the property under a claim of right, in order to abate a public nuisance, must allege and prove ‘that what he destroyed was a public nuisance | 1 | 1 |
Schafer v. Rms Realtygreen2 sentences2008See Schafer v. RMS Realty (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 244, 300 , 741 N.E.2d 155 , citing AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 , 553 N.E.2d 597 (“Decisions are unreasonable if they are not supported by a sound reasoning process”). {¶ 51} In Jackson v. Columbus (1974), 41 Ohio App.2d 90 , 70 O.O.2d 92 , 322 N. E.2d 283 , the Tenth District Court of Appeals noted: {¶ 52} “[T]he one who has destroyed the property under a claim of right, in order to abate a public nuisance, must allege and prove ‘that what he destroyed was a public nuisance 2008See Schafer v. RMS Realty (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 244, 300 , 741 N.E.2d 155 , citing AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 , 553 N.E.2d 597 (“Decisions are unreasonable if they are not supported by a sound reasoning process”). {¶ 51} In Jackson v. Columbus (1974), 41 Ohio App.2d 90 , 70 O.O.2d 92 , 322 N. E.2d 283 , the Tenth District Court of Appeals noted: {¶ 52} “[T]he one who has destroyed the property under a claim of right, in order to abate a public nuisance, must allege and prove ‘that what he destroyed was a public nuisance | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2007See, Peck v. Peck (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 731 ; see, also, Williams v. Williams (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 320 ; Zeefe v. Zeefe (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 600 . *Page 1 | 1 | 1 |
Peck v. Peckgreen1 sentence2007See, Peck v. Peck (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 731 ; see, also, Williams v. Williams (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 320 ; Zeefe v. Zeefe (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 600 . *Page 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zeffe v. Zeefe
green
2 sentences2007See, Peck v. Peck (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 731 ; see, also, Williams v. Williams (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 320 ; Zeefe v. Zeefe (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 600 . *Page 1 2007Zeefe v. Zeefe (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 600 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
green
2 sentences1993In support, appellant cites the reasoning set forth in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2886 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 . 1993In support, appellant cites the reasoning set forth in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2886 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 . | 2 | 1993–1993 |
Wyatt v. Ohio Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2026“The sovereign is said to hold the property in trust for Jackson App. No. 25CA11 14 the public, which should not suffer should the sovereign’s negligence or inattention expose the property to a claim of adverse possession.” Id., citing Nusekabel at 436 . {¶27} At the trial level, Kinkaid acknowledged “the time-honored general rule that adverse possession does not run against the government” but asserted that a large and valuable structures exception to the general rule applied. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
French v. Ascent Resources-Utica, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2024Appellants contend that, in applying Ohio law, the real property exception to arbitration exempts this controversy, citing French v. Ascent Resources-Utica, L.L.C., 2022-Ohio-869 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2024No. 22AP-365, 2023- Ohio-1646, ¶ 18, quoting Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 , 2014-Ohio-4275 , ¶ 13. {¶ 30} Rachel contends she did not provide false testimony or conceal evidence but instead disagreed with the separate property claim that Steven asserted and then later (in her view) abandoned. 2024No. 22AP-365, 2023- Ohio-1646, ¶ 18, quoting Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 , 2014-Ohio-4275 , ¶ 13. {¶ 30} Rachel contends she did not provide false testimony or conceal evidence but instead disagreed with the separate property claim that Steven asserted and then later (in her view) abandoned. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Gale v. York Center Community Cooperative, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ockunzzi v. Ockunzzi, Unpublished Decision (11-2-2006)
green
1 sentence2019Cuyahoga No. 86785, 2006-Ohio-5741 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re Bucio
neutral
2 sentences2017In re Bucio , 149 Ohio St.3d 1243 , 2017-Ohio-29 , 75 N.E.3d 1257 . {¶ 2} In 2015, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Bucio with professional misconduct based on the facts that led to his felony conviction. 2017In re Bucio , 149 Ohio St.3d 1243 , 2017-Ohio-29 , 75 N.E.3d 1257 . {¶ 2} In 2015, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Bucio with professional misconduct based on the facts that led to his felony conviction. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Fisher v. Fisher, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2004)
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Comella v. Comella, 90969 (12-18-2008)
green
1 sentence2011Comella v. Comella (Dec. 18), Cuyahoga App. No. 90969, 2008-Ohio-6673 , see also, R.C. 3105.171(A)(6)(a)(vii). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Morrison v. Steiner
green
2 sentences2005Waste Mgmt. of Ohio v. Bd. of Health of the City of Cincinnati, Franklin App. No. 04AP-437, 2005-Ohio-1153 at ¶ 41 , citing Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86 , 61 Ohio Op. 2d 335 , 290 N.E.2d 841 , paragraph one of the syllabus. "`Jurisdiction does not relate to the rights of the parties, but to the power of the court. '" Waste Mgmt. of Ohio, supra, citing State ex rel. 2005Waste Mgmt. of Ohio v. Bd. of Health of the City of Cincinnati, Franklin App. No. 04AP-437, 2005-Ohio-1153 at ¶ 41 , citing Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86 , 61 Ohio Op. 2d 335 , 290 N.E.2d 841 , paragraph one of the syllabus. "`Jurisdiction does not relate to the rights of the parties, but to the power of the court. '" Waste Mgmt. of Ohio, supra, citing State ex rel. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. v. Board of Health
green
2 sentences2005Waste Mgmt. of Ohio v. Bd. of Health of the City of Cincinnati, Franklin App. No. 04AP-437, 2005-Ohio-1153 at ¶ 41 , citing Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86 , 61 Ohio Op. 2d 335 , 290 N.E.2d 841 , paragraph one of the syllabus. "`Jurisdiction does not relate to the rights of the parties, but to the power of the court. '" Waste Mgmt. of Ohio, supra, citing State ex rel. 2005Waste Mgmt. of Ohio v. Bd. of Health of the City of Cincinnati, Franklin App. No. 04AP-437, 2005-Ohio-1153 at ¶ 41 , citing Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86 , 61 Ohio Op. 2d 335 , 290 N.E.2d 841 , paragraph one of the syllabus. "`Jurisdiction does not relate to the rights of the parties, but to the power of the court. '" Waste Mgmt. of Ohio, supra, citing State ex rel. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Austin v. United States
green
2 sentences1996In light of Austin’s intent to have the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal wrestle with determining what is an excessive fine, Austin, 509 U.S. at 622-624 , 113 S.Ct. at 2812-2813 , 125 L.Ed.2d at 506 , various federal circuit courts have adopted two principal tests, the instrumentality test and the proportionality test. 1996In light of Austin’s intent to have the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal wrestle with determining what is an excessive fine, Austin, 509 U.S. at 622-624 , 113 S.Ct. at 2812-2813 , 125 L.Ed.2d at 506 , various federal circuit courts have adopted two principal tests, the instrumentality test and the proportionality test. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Kaechele v. Kaechele
green
1 sentence1995Id., paragraph two of the syllabus. *383 On the other hand, a contract does not have to be fair or equitable to be enforceable. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Hoagland v. Hoagland
green
2 sentences1927Since Hoagland v. Hoagland, 113 Ohio St., 228 , 148 N. E., 585 , husband and wife contemplating a separation may enter into an engagement by which each may release the other’s property from a claim for dower. 1927Since Hoagland v. Hoagland, 113 Ohio St., 228 , 148 N. E., 585 , husband and wife contemplating a separation may enter into an engagement by which each may release the other’s property from a claim for dower. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Scottish Union & National Insurance v. Bowland
green
1 sentence1922Co. v. Bowland, supra, at page 630, in the following language: “Examination of this section [2745, Revised Statutes] shows that it imposes a tax upon the business of the company in Ohio, and is not a property but a privilege tax. | 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.