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.
20 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Beagle v. Waldengreen2 sentences1999Accord Beagle v. Walden (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 59, 62 , 676 N.E.2d 506, 507 . 1999Accord Beagle v. Walden (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 59, 62 , 676 N.E.2d 506, 507 . | 2 | 2 |
State ex rel. Dix v. Celestegreen2 sentences2020Dix v. Celeste, 11 Ohio St.3d 141, 144 , 464 N.E.2d 153 (1984), we explained that our “reluctance to interfere with the legislative process” would not cause this court to “abdicate in its duty to enforce the Ohio Constitution.” We thus concluded, as we had suggested in Pim, that “a manifestly gross and fraudulent violation” of a directory constitutional provision “will cause an enactment to be invalidated.” Id. at syllabus. 2020Dix v. Celeste, 11 Ohio St.3d 141, 144 , 464 N.E.2d 153 (1984), we explained that our “reluctance to interfere with the legislative process” would not cause this court to “abdicate in its duty to enforce the Ohio Constitution.” We thus concluded, as we had suggested in Pim, that “a manifestly gross and fraudulent violation” of a directory constitutional provision “will cause an enactment to be invalidated.” Id. at syllabus. | 1 | 11 |
State ex rel. Ohio AFL-CIO v. Voinovichgreen2 sentences2020See also Voinovich, 69 Ohio St.3d at 229 , 631 N.E.2d 582 . 1997An example of such a violation is found in Ohio AFL-CIO v. Voinovich (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 225 , 631 N.E.2d 582 . | 1 | 2 |
ComTech Systems, Inc. v. Limbachgreen2 sentences2004First, in ComTech Sys., Inc. v. Limbach, the court carved out an exception for appropriations bills that deal “with the operations of the state government.” Id., 59 Ohio St.3d at 99 , 570 N.E.2d 1089 . 2004First, in ComTech Sys., Inc. v. Limbach, the court carved out an exception for appropriations bills that deal “with the operations of the state government.” Id., 59 Ohio St.3d at 99 , 570 N.E.2d 1089 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Nowak
green
2 sentences2020“A manifestly gross and fraudulent violation of the one-subject provision contained in Section 15(D), Article II of the Ohio Constitution will cause an enactment to be invalidated.” In re Nowak, 104 Ohio St.3d 466 , 2004-Ohio-6777 , 820 N.E.2d 335 , paragraph one of the syllabus, citing State ex rel. 2020“A manifestly gross and fraudulent violation of the one-subject provision contained in Section 15(D), Article II of the Ohio Constitution will cause an enactment to be invalidated.” In re Nowak, 104 Ohio St.3d 466 , 2004-Ohio-6777 , 820 N.E.2d 335 , paragraph one of the syllabus, citing State ex rel. | 8 | 2008–2020 |
State ex rel. Zeigler v. Zumbar
green
2 sentences2018Zeigler v. Zumbar , 129 Ohio St.3d 240 , 2011-Ohio-2939 , 951 N.E.2d 405 , ¶ 24. "[B]efore a statute is struck down 'it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation and constitutional provisions are clearly incompatible.' " Id., quoting State ex rel. 2018Zeigler v. Zumbar , 129 Ohio St.3d 240 , 2011-Ohio-2939 , 951 N.E.2d 405 , ¶ 24. "[B]efore a statute is struck down 'it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation and constitutional provisions are clearly incompatible.' " Id., quoting State ex rel. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hoover v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2009Bd. of Commrs. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 1, 6 , 19 OBR 1, 482 N.E.2d 575 . {¶ 49} In recognition of this deference to the legislature, we have held: “A manifestly gross and fraudulent violation of the one-subject provision 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO contained in Section 15(D), Article II of the Ohio Constitution will cause an enactment to be invalidated.” In re Nowak, 104 Ohio St.3d 466 , 2004-Ohio-6777 , 820 N.E.2d 335 , paragraph one of the syllabus. 2009Bd. of Commrs. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 1, 6 , 19 OBR 1, 482 N.E.2d 575 . {¶ 49} In recognition of this deference to the legislature, we have held: “A manifestly gross and fraudulent violation of the one-subject provision 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO contained in Section 15(D), Article II of the Ohio Constitution will cause an enactment to be invalidated.” In re Nowak, 104 Ohio St.3d 466 , 2004-Ohio-6777 , 820 N.E.2d 335 , paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward
green
2 sentences2008Id., 86 Ohio St.3d at 498 , 715 N.E.2d 1062 ; see Dix, 11 Ohio St.3d 141 , 11 OBR 436, 464 N.E.2d 153 , at the syllabus (a manifestly gross and fraudulent violation of the one-subject rule will cause an enactment to be invalidated). 2008Id., 86 Ohio St.3d at 498 , 715 N.E.2d 1062 ; see Dix, 11 Ohio St.3d 141 , 11 OBR 436, 464 N.E.2d 153 , at the syllabus (a manifestly gross and fraudulent violation of the one-subject rule will cause an enactment to be invalidated). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.