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.
17 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1995–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapel v. Wheeler Growth Co.green2 sentences2026Although Preston’s use of the phrase “‘rights and safety’ in describing the latter type of malice seemed to imply a conjunctive test requiring both elements, the court clarified in the same paragraph that, to find malice under the ‘conscious disregard’ test, a court must conclude that ‘the party consciously disregarded the injured party’s rights or safety.’” (Emphasis in original.) Chapel v. Wheeler Growth Co., 2023-Ohio-3988, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.), quoting Preston at 336 . 2024Chapel v. Wheeler Growth Co., 2023-Ohio-3988, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.) (discussing Preston’s own clarification of this point at page 336 of its decision). “ ‘Actual malice is necessary for an award of punitive damages, but actual malice is not limited to cases where the defendant can be shown to have had an “evil mind.” ’ ” Buckeye Union Ins. | 2 | 2 |
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Councilgreen2 sentences1995A zoning ordinance effects a taking of property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if it “ ‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’ ” (Emphasis omitted in part.) Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 813 (quoting Agins v. Tiburon [1980], 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 ). 1995A zoning ordinance effects a taking of property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if it “ ‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’ ” (Emphasis omitted in part.) Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 813 (quoting Agins v. Tiburon [1980], 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 ). | 2 | 2 |
Kahn v. Cvs Pharmacy, Inc.green2 sentences2023Although the court’s use of “rights and safety” in describing the latter type of malice seemed to imply a conjunctive test requiring both elements, the court clarified in the same paragraph that, to find malice under the “conscious disregard” test, a court must conclude that “the party consciously disregarded the injured party’s rights or safety.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 336 ; see Kahn v. CVS 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Pharmacy, Inc., 165 Ohio App.3d 420 , 2006-Ohio-112 , 846 N.E.2d 904, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.) (quoting the “rights or safety” language from Preston). 2023Although the court’s use of “rights and safety” in describing the latter type of malice seemed to imply a conjunctive test requiring both elements, the court clarified in the same paragraph that, to find malice under the “conscious disregard” test, a court must conclude that “the party consciously disregarded the injured party’s rights or safety.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 336 ; see Kahn v. CVS 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Pharmacy, Inc., 165 Ohio App.3d 420 , 2006-Ohio-112 , 846 N.E.2d 904, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.) (quoting the “rights or safety” language from Preston). | 1 | 1 |
Edenfield v. Fanegreen1 sentence2019Hudson analysis comprise a conjunctive test, and a regulation of protected commercial speech can be ruled unconstitutional for failing any one of these three requirements. " '[T]he party seeking to uphold the restriction on commercial speech carries the burden of justifying it.' " Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 770 (1993), quoting Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. | 1 | 1 |
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.green1 sentence2019Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 71, fn. 20 (1983). {¶ 18} As the first prong of the Cent. | 1 | 1 |
Nectow v. City of Cambridgegreen2 sentences1995A zoning ordinance effects a taking of property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if it “‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’” (Emphasis omitted in part.) Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. ___ , ___, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 813 (quoting Agins v. Tiburon [1980], 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 ). {¶ 36} With regard to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has 1995A zoning ordinance effects a taking of property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if it “‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’” (Emphasis omitted in part.) Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. ___ , ___, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 813 (quoting Agins v. Tiburon [1980], 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 ). {¶ 36} With regard to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gerijo, Inc. v. City of Fairfield
green
2 sentences2004On September 12, 2003, the trial court ruled that "Oakwood's prohibition is not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unrelated to public health, or unconstitutional." {¶ 7} BP now appeals and assigns two errors for our review. {¶ 8} BP's first assignment of error states: {¶ 9} "The trial court erred in applying the conjunctive standard set forth in the now-disfavored opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court in Gerijo, Inc. v. Fairfield (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 223 , 228 (See journal entry and opinion of Judge Joseph Russo, September 12, 2003 at pp. 4-5)." {¶ 10} Within this assignment of error, BP asser 2004On September 12, 2003, the trial court ruled that "Oakwood's prohibition is not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unrelated to public health, or unconstitutional." {¶ 7} BP now appeals and assigns two errors for our review. {¶ 8} BP's first assignment of error states: {¶ 9} "The trial court erred in applying the conjunctive standard set forth in the now-disfavored opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court in Gerijo, Inc. v. Fairfield (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 223 , 228 (See journal entry and opinion of Judge Joseph Russo, September 12, 2003 at pp. 4-5)." {¶ 10} Within this assignment of error, BP asser | 5 | 1995–2004 |
Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.
green
2 sentences2007Concerning substantial certainty, we have stated that: "Some of the relevant facts and circumstances which support the conclusion that an employer's knowledge that harm to the employee was a substantial certainty include, but are not limited to: prior acts of a similar nature, the employer's concealment or misrepresentations concerning the danger, and federal and/or state *Page 6 safety violations or noncompliance by the employer with industry safety standards." Id. {¶ 13} We begin the analysis by noting that the Fyffe test is a conjunctive test. 2006Id. {¶ 15} We begin the analysis by noting that the Fyffe test is a conjunctive test. | 2 | 2006–2007 |
Agins v. City of Tiburon
red
2 sentences1995A zoning ordinance effects a taking of property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if it “ ‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’ ” (Emphasis omitted in part.) Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 813 (quoting Agins v. Tiburon [1980], 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 ). 1995A zoning ordinance effects a taking of property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if it “ ‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’ ” (Emphasis omitted in part.) Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 813 (quoting Agins v. Tiburon [1980], 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 ). | 2 | 1995–1995 |
White v. Bay Mechanical Elec. Corp., 06ca008930 (4-16-2007)
green
1 sentence2024Because this is a conjunctive test, all four of its factors must be satisfied to sustain a claim. {¶23} Phillips failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact under the fourth prong of the test, that either Phillips was harassed by a supervisor or that Regina’s “agents or supervisory personnel[] know or should have known of the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Preston v. Murty
green
1 sentence2023Although the court’s use of “rights and safety” in describing the latter type of malice seemed to imply a conjunctive test requiring both elements, the court clarified in the same paragraph that, to find malice under the “conscious disregard” test, a court must conclude that “the party consciously disregarded the injured party’s rights or safety.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 336 ; see Kahn v. CVS 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Pharmacy, Inc., 165 Ohio App.3d 420 , 2006-Ohio-112 , 846 N.E.2d 904, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.) (quoting the “rights or safety” language from Preston). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Murea v. Pulte Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018Cuyahoga No. 100127, 2014-Ohio-398 , 2014 WL 504848 , ¶ 11 ("[T]hese two concepts create a two-prong conjunctive test for unconscionability [that] * * * is not satisfied if one of the requirements is not met."). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
City of Oregon v. Dansack
green
2 sentences2017Case No. 2017-00248-PQ -6- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 68 Ohio St.3d 1, 4 , 623 N.E.2d 20 (1993) (in mandamus, court is not limited to considering the facts and circumstances at the time the proceeding was instituted, but should consider the facts and conditions at the time it determines the writ). {¶10} Further, and independently fatal to Tingler’s request, he fails to argue or support the conjunctive requirement for dismissal under R.C. 2743.75(C)(2) that the case “involves an issue of substantial public interest.” There is no evidence that a substantial number of people are or will be affecte 2017Case No. 2017-00248-PQ -6- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 68 Ohio St.3d 1, 4 , 623 N.E.2d 20 (1993) (in mandamus, court is not limited to considering the facts and circumstances at the time the proceeding was instituted, but should consider the facts and conditions at the time it determines the writ). {¶10} Further, and independently fatal to Tingler’s request, he fails to argue or support the conjunctive requirement for dismissal under R.C. 2743.75(C)(2) that the case “involves an issue of substantial public interest.” There is no evidence that a substantial number of people are or will be affecte | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Strack v. Pelton
green
2 sentences2014Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172, 174 , 637 N.E.2d 914 (1994). {¶12} In determining whether an agreement is procedurally unconscionable, courts consider the relative bargaining positions of the parties including each party’s age, education, intelligence, experience, and who drafted the contract. 2014Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172, 174 , 637 N.E.2d 914 (1994). {¶12} In determining whether an agreement is procedurally unconscionable, courts consider the relative bargaining positions of the parties including each party’s age, education, intelligence, experience, and who drafted the contract. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Hall, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2004)
green
1 sentence2007R. 16(E)(3) by permitting such evidence to be admitted." Parson , 6 Ohio St.3d 442 , at syllabus (emphasis added). {¶ 20} In State v. Hall , Cuyahoga App. No. 83361, 2004-Ohio-5963 , the Eighth District Court of Appeals noted that although Parson phrased the test in the disjunctive, one Ohio Supreme Court case after Parson used a conjunctive standard. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Parson
green
1 sentence2007R. 16(E)(3) by permitting such evidence to be admitted." Parson , 6 Ohio St.3d 442 , at syllabus (emphasis added). {¶ 20} In State v. Hall , Cuyahoga App. No. 83361, 2004-Ohio-5963 , the Eighth District Court of Appeals noted that although Parson phrased the test in the disjunctive, one Ohio Supreme Court case after Parson used a conjunctive standard. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Joseph
green
2 sentences2007Id. at ¶ 18, *Page 7 discussing State v. Joseph , 73 Ohio St.3d 450 , 1995-Ohio-288 , 653 N.E.2d 285 . 2007Id. at ¶ 18, *Page 7 discussing State v. Joseph , 73 Ohio St.3d 450 , 1995-Ohio-288 , 653 N.E.2d 285 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Joseph
green
1 sentence2007Id. at ¶ 18, *Page 7 discussing State v. Joseph , 73 Ohio St.3d 450 , 1995-Ohio-288 , 653 N.E.2d 285 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State ex rel. Shemo v. City of Mayfield Heights
green
2 sentences2004Shemo v. Mayfield Hts. (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 59 , 765 N.E.2d 345 and Goldberg Cos., Inc. v. Richmond Hts. 2004Shemo v. Mayfield Hts. (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 59 , 765 N.E.2d 345 and Goldberg Cos., Inc. v. Richmond Hts. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Central Motors Corp. v. City of Pepper Pike
green
1 sentence1996Motors Corp. v. Pepper Pike (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 581, 584 , 653 N.E.2d 639 , 642-643. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
green
2 sentences1995A zoning ordinance effects a taking of property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if it “‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’” (Emphasis omitted in part.) Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. ___ , ___, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 813 (quoting Agins v. Tiburon [1980], 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 ). {¶ 36} With regard to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has 1995A zoning ordinance effects a taking of property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if it “‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’” (Emphasis omitted in part.) Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. ___ , ___, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 813 (quoting Agins v. Tiburon [1980], 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 ). {¶ 36} With regard to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.