20 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brown Subergreen2 sentences2025State v. Suber, 2021-Ohio-2291, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.); State v. Miles, 2020-Ohio-6921, ¶¶ 20, 27-31 (11th Dist.); State v. Long, 2021-Ohio-2672, ¶¶ 27-29 (4th Dist.); State v. Whitehead, 2021- Ohio-847, ¶¶ 43-46 (8th Dist.). {¶20} In Suber, the trial court failed to notify the defendant of three of the five required advisements - specifically, that the ODRC must hold a hearing to rebut the presumption of release, may continue incarceration beyond the minimum term for a reasonable time within the maximum, and may make those determinations more than once. 2021-Ohio-2291, ¶ 17 . 2025State v. Suber, 2021-Ohio-2291, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.); State v. Miles, 2020-Ohio-6921, ¶¶ 20, 27-31 (11th Dist.); State v. Long, 2021-Ohio-2672, ¶¶ 27-29 (4th Dist.); State v. Whitehead, 2021- Ohio-847, ¶¶ 43-46 (8th Dist.). {¶20} In Suber, the trial court failed to notify the defendant of three of the five required advisements - specifically, that the ODRC must hold a hearing to rebut the presumption of release, may continue incarceration beyond the minimum term for a reasonable time within the maximum, and may make those determinations more than once. 2021-Ohio-2291, ¶ 17 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Popegreen1 sentence2025Id. at ¶ 18, see also State v. Paul, 2021-Ohio-1628, ¶¶ 22-23 (12th Dist.); Abdus-Salaam, 2024-Ohio-2773, ¶ 83 ; State v. Pope, 2022-Ohio-426, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.); State v. Massie, 2021-Ohio-3376, ¶ 29 (2d Dist.). {¶21} In Abdus-Salaam, this Court found that the trial judge failed to advise Abdus-Salaam that: (1) the ODRC must hold a hearing to rebut the presumption that appellant would be released after serving his mandatory minimum sentence; (2) the ODRC could maintain appellant’s incarceration more than one time; and (3) the ODRC may make specified determinations regarding his conduct while c | 1 | 1 |
State v. Milesgreen1 sentence2025State v. Suber, 2021-Ohio-2291, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.); State v. Miles, 2020-Ohio-6921, ¶¶ 20, 27-31 (11th Dist.); State v. Long, 2021-Ohio-2672, ¶¶ 27-29 (4th Dist.); State v. Whitehead, 2021- Ohio-847, ¶¶ 43-46 (8th Dist.). {¶20} In Suber, the trial court failed to notify the defendant of three of the five required advisements - specifically, that the ODRC must hold a hearing to rebut the presumption of release, may continue incarceration beyond the minimum term for a reasonable time within the maximum, and may make those determinations more than once. 2021-Ohio-2291, ¶ 17 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Paulgreen1 sentence2025Id. at ¶ 18, see also State v. Paul, 2021-Ohio-1628, ¶¶ 22-23 (12th Dist.); Abdus-Salaam, 2024-Ohio-2773, ¶ 83 ; State v. Pope, 2022-Ohio-426, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.); State v. Massie, 2021-Ohio-3376, ¶ 29 (2d Dist.). {¶21} In Abdus-Salaam, this Court found that the trial judge failed to advise Abdus-Salaam that: (1) the ODRC must hold a hearing to rebut the presumption that appellant would be released after serving his mandatory minimum sentence; (2) the ODRC could maintain appellant’s incarceration more than one time; and (3) the ODRC may make specified determinations regarding his conduct while c | 1 | 1 |
State v. Longgreen1 sentence2025State v. Suber, 2021-Ohio-2291, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.); State v. Miles, 2020-Ohio-6921, ¶¶ 20, 27-31 (11th Dist.); State v. Long, 2021-Ohio-2672, ¶¶ 27-29 (4th Dist.); State v. Whitehead, 2021- Ohio-847, ¶¶ 43-46 (8th Dist.). {¶20} In Suber, the trial court failed to notify the defendant of three of the five required advisements - specifically, that the ODRC must hold a hearing to rebut the presumption of release, may continue incarceration beyond the minimum term for a reasonable time within the maximum, and may make those determinations more than once. 2021-Ohio-2291, ¶ 17 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Massiegreen1 sentence2025Id. at ¶ 18, see also State v. Paul, 2021-Ohio-1628, ¶¶ 22-23 (12th Dist.); Abdus-Salaam, 2024-Ohio-2773, ¶ 83 ; State v. Pope, 2022-Ohio-426, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.); State v. Massie, 2021-Ohio-3376, ¶ 29 (2d Dist.). {¶21} In Abdus-Salaam, this Court found that the trial judge failed to advise Abdus-Salaam that: (1) the ODRC must hold a hearing to rebut the presumption that appellant would be released after serving his mandatory minimum sentence; (2) the ODRC could maintain appellant’s incarceration more than one time; and (3) the ODRC may make specified determinations regarding his conduct while c | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Shaffergreen1 sentence2021Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 390 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Andersen v. Highland House Co.green1 sentence2020Capella III, L.L.C. v. Wilcox, 190 Ohio App.3d 133 , 2010-Ohio-4746 , ¶ 16 (10th Dist.), citing Andersen v. Highland House Co., 93 Ohio St.3d 547, 548 (2001). "[D]e novo appellate review means that the court of appeals independently reviews the record and affords no deference to the trial court's decision." (Quotations and citations omitted.) Holt v. State, 10th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Helton v. Scioto County Board of Commissionersgreen2 sentences2019Bd. of Commrs. , 123 Ohio App.3d 158 , 162, 703 N.E.2d 841 (4th Dist.1997). {¶ 13} Bugh's first assignment of error asserts the Court of Claims erred in granting ODRC's motion for summary judgment. 2019Bd. of Commrs. , 123 Ohio App.3d 158 , 162, 703 N.E.2d 841 (4th Dist.1997). {¶ 13} Bugh's first assignment of error asserts the Court of Claims erred in granting ODRC's motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Stewart v. Industrial Commissiongreen1 sentence2016Relying on the holding in Davis v. Wolfe, 92 Ohio St.3d 549, 552 (2001), and former R.C. 2951.09, McKinney claimed that the judgment entry was void on its face because the entry itself noted that his period of community control ended June 22, 2003, yet his community control was not revoked until October 10, 2003. 1 The Court of Claims granted ODRC's motion for summary judgment, and McKinney appealed to this court. {¶ 11} On appeal, McKinney maintained that the plain language of the judgment entry put ODRC on notice that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his community control. | 1 | 1 |
Feliciano v. Kreigergreen1 sentence2015False imprisonment occurs when a person confines another intentionally " 'without lawful privilege and against his consent within a limited area for any appreciable time, however short.' " Bennett v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 60 Ohio St.3d 107, 109 (1991), quoting Feliciano v. Krieger, 50 Ohio St.2d 69, 71 (1977); Roberson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correctiongreen1 sentence2015False imprisonment occurs when a person confines another intentionally " 'without lawful privilege and against his consent within a limited area for any appreciable time, however short.' " Bennett v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 60 Ohio St.3d 107, 109 (1991), quoting Feliciano v. Krieger, 50 Ohio St.2d 69, 71 (1977); Roberson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Walleon Bobo v. United Parcel Service, Inc.green1 sentence2014Inc., 665 F.3d 741, 753 (6th Cir.2012). | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton v. Dept. of Rehab. Corr., Unpublished Decision (3-15-2007)green1 sentence2014No. 06AP-916, 2007-Ohio-1173, ¶ 13 (noting that "a plaintiff who has had the opportunity to raise assignments of error from a criminal conviction in a direct appeal cannot substitute an action in the Court of Claims for a right of appeal in a different court"). {¶ 17} Based on the foregoing, we find that the Court of Claims properly granted ODRC's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. | 1 | 1 |
O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc.green1 sentence2008See O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242 . *Page 8 {¶ 24} It is indeed clear beyond doubt that relator has failed to state a claim upon which relief in mandamus could be granted against ODRC. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Abdus-Salaam
green
1 sentence2025Id. at ¶ 18, see also State v. Paul, 2021-Ohio-1628, ¶¶ 22-23 (12th Dist.); Abdus-Salaam, 2024-Ohio-2773, ¶ 83 ; State v. Pope, 2022-Ohio-426, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.); State v. Massie, 2021-Ohio-3376, ¶ 29 (2d Dist.). {¶21} In Abdus-Salaam, this Court found that the trial judge failed to advise Abdus-Salaam that: (1) the ODRC must hold a hearing to rebut the presumption that appellant would be released after serving his mandatory minimum sentence; (2) the ODRC could maintain appellant’s incarceration more than one time; and (3) the ODRC may make specified determinations regarding his conduct while c | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State ex rel. Breaux v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County
green
1 sentence2024Breaux v. Court of Common Pleas, 50 Ohio St. 2d 164 (1977). {¶ 28} In the present matter, because ODRC has now performed the act that relator sought to compel, i.e., providing relator the requested report, the matter is moot and mandamus will not lie. {¶ 29} Accordingly, the magistrate recommends that this court grant relator's motion to file instanter his memorandum in opposition, and grant ODRC’s motion to dismiss relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus. /S/ MAGISTRATE THOMAS W. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Ferguson
green
2 sentences2022Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153 , as follows: “[T]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Woods [v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504, 513 , 733 N.E.2d 1103 (2000)] citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). 2022Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153 , as follows: “[T]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Woods [v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504, 513 , 733 N.E.2d 1103 (2000)] citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Stenson
green
2 sentences2022Lucas No. L-20-1074, 2022-Ohio-2072 , has recently explained: Senate Bill 201 – The Reagan Tokes Law – became effective on March 22, 2019. 2022Lucas No. L-20-1074, 2022-Ohio-2072 , has recently explained: Senate Bill 201 – The Reagan Tokes Law – became effective on March 22, 2019. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Drain v. Kosydar
green
1 sentence2022Drummond's claim for punitive damages was also stricken by the court pursuant to Drain v. Kosydar, 54 Ohio St.2d 49 (1978). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Goldberg v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2022Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153 , as follows: “[T]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Woods [v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504, 513 , 733 N.E.2d 1103 (2000)] citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). 2022Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153 , as follows: “[T]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Woods [v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504, 513 , 733 N.E.2d 1103 (2000)] citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
North Carolina v. Alford
green
2 sentences2022Background {¶ 2} On September 15, 2021, appellant pled guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) to aggravated assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.12(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree. 2022Background {¶ 2} On September 15, 2021, appellant pled guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) to aggravated assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.12(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Woods v. Telb
green
2 sentences2022Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153 , as follows: “[T]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Woods [v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504, 513 , 733 N.E.2d 1103 (2000)] citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). 2022Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153 , as follows: “[T]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Woods [v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504, 513 , 733 N.E.2d 1103 (2000)] citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Capella III, L.L.C. v. Wilcox
green
1 sentence2020Capella III, L.L.C. v. Wilcox, 190 Ohio App.3d 133 , 2010-Ohio-4746 , ¶ 16 (10th Dist.), citing Andersen v. Highland House Co., 93 Ohio St.3d 547, 548 (2001). "[D]e novo appellate review means that the court of appeals independently reviews the record and affords no deference to the trial court's decision." (Quotations and citations omitted.) Holt v. State, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Management, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 , 2010-Ohio-2057, ¶ 11 . 2020Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 , 2010-Ohio-2057, ¶ 11 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
United States v. Nixon
green
2 sentences2016The proponent accomplishes this by showing (1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general "fishing expedition." Id., quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700 , 94 S.Ct. 3090 (1974). {¶ 92} Aft 2016The proponent accomplishes this by showing (1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general "fishing expedition." Id., quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700 , 94 S.Ct. 3090 (1974). {¶ 92} Aft | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State Ex Rel. Parker v. Lucas County Department of Job & Family Services
neutral
2 sentences2009Job Family Servs. , 176 Ohio App.3d 715 , 723 , 2008-Ohio-3274 , ¶ 38 (presuming injury from 100-day delay in providing records). {¶ 13} In conclusion, having overruled ODRC's objection, we award relator statutory damages in the amount of $1,000. 2009Job Family Servs. , 176 Ohio App.3d 715 , 723 , 2008-Ohio-3274 , ¶ 38 (presuming injury from 100-day delay in providing records). {¶ 13} In conclusion, having overruled ODRC's objection, we award relator statutory damages in the amount of $1,000. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. Cotton
green
2 sentences2007See, generally, R.C. 2711.15 (providing that "[a]n appeal may be taken from an order confirming, modifying, correcting, *Page 3 or vacating an award made in an arbitration proceeding or from judgment entered upon an award"). {¶ 4} Plaintiff assigns a single error for our consideration: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS WHEN IT IMPROPERLY FOUND THAT APPELLANT SHAWN KOEHRING WAS NOT THE PROPER PARTY TO MOVE TO VACATE THE ARBITRATOR'S DECISION PURSUANT TO R.C. 2711.10 . {¶ 5} Although the parties have not raised whether subject-matter jurisdiction proper 2007See, generally, R.C. 2711.15 (providing that "[a]n appeal may be taken from an order confirming, modifying, correcting, *Page 3 or vacating an award made in an arbitration proceeding or from judgment entered upon an award"). {¶ 4} Plaintiff assigns a single error for our consideration: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS WHEN IT IMPROPERLY FOUND THAT APPELLANT SHAWN KOEHRING WAS NOT THE PROPER PARTY TO MOVE TO VACATE THE ARBITRATOR'S DECISION PURSUANT TO R.C. 2711.10 . {¶ 5} Although the parties have not raised whether subject-matter jurisdiction proper | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State ex rel. White v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority
green
1 sentence2007Auth. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 543 , 544 . {¶ 7} Here, although the common pleas court's judgment granted ODRC's motion to dismiss plaintiff's motion for lack of standing, the court's judgment did not expressly adjudicate plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitrator's award. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Pratts v. Hurley
green
1 sentence2007See, generally, R.C. 2711.15 (providing that "[a]n appeal may be taken from an order confirming, modifying, correcting, *Page 3 or vacating an award made in an arbitration proceeding or from judgment entered upon an award"). {¶ 4} Plaintiff assigns a single error for our consideration: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS WHEN IT IMPROPERLY FOUND THAT APPELLANT SHAWN KOEHRING WAS NOT THE PROPER PARTY TO MOVE TO VACATE THE ARBITRATOR'S DECISION PURSUANT TO R.C. 2711.10 . {¶ 5} Although the parties have not raised whether subject-matter jurisdiction proper | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Leon v. Boardman Township green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.