15 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cicero v. U.S. Four, Inc., 07ap-310 (12-11-2007)green1 sentence2025The deferential abuse of discretion standard appropriately applies to the question of class certification “due to the trial court’s ‘special expertise and familiarity with case-management problems and its inherent power to manage its own docket.’ ” Cicero v. U.S. Four, Inc., 2007-Ohio-6600, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.), quoting Hamilton at 70. | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton v. Ohio Savings Bankgreen2 sentences2025The deferential abuse of discretion standard appropriately applies to the question of class certification “due to the trial court’s ‘special expertise and familiarity with case-management problems and its inherent power to manage its own docket.’ ” Cicero v. U.S. Four, Inc., 2007-Ohio-6600, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.), quoting Hamilton at 70. 2025A trial court’s discretion, however, is not unlimited; it is “bounded by and must be exercised within the framework of Civ.R. 23.” Hamilton at 70. “ ‘A determination by a trial court regarding class certification that is clearly outside the boundaries established by Civ.R. 23, or that suggests that the trial court did not conduct a rigorous analysis into whether or not the prerequisites of Civ.R. 23 are satisfied, will constitute an abuse of discretion.’ ” Id. at 10, quoting Hansen v. Landaker, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5680, *7 (10th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Flickingergreen1 sentence2016Scioto No. 14CA3630, 2014-Ohio-5835 , ¶ 20 (recognizing the propriety of applying the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard to challenges to the trial court’s factual findings in custody modifications). {¶5} R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) provides in relevant part that: [t]he court shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children unless it finds, based on facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child, the child’s resid | 1 | 1 |
Cronin v. California Fitness, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2005)green1 sentence2007See, e.g., Cronin v. Cal. Fitness , Franklin App. No. 04AP-1121, 2005-Ohio-3273 . {¶ 9} John Hancock's first two assignments of error present intertwined issues and will be addressed together. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blakemore v. Blakemore
green
2 sentences2009Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . {¶ 126} Husband asserts the trial court erred in finding the First Energy stock was Wife's separate property. 2009Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . {¶ 126} Husband asserts the trial court erred in finding the First Energy stock was Wife's separate property. | 11 | 1996–2009 |
Mba Realty v. Little G, Inc.
green
1 sentence2009TASER cites the Eighth District Court of Appeal's decision MBA Realty v. Little G, Inc. (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 334 , 337-38 , for the proposition that this Court must review the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.