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.
15 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1950–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carrabine Construction Co. v. Chrysler Realty Corp.green2 sentences2007As pertinent here, the court held at the syllabus that "a trial court is precluded from considering supplemental oral testimony introduced for the first time at a hearing on a motion for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56." Id. at syllabus. {¶ 13} In the instant case, the trial court sua sponte set the summary judgment motion for an evidentiary hearing, stating that absent live testimony, it was unable to determine whether OCRC fulfilled the prerequisites of R.C. 4112.05 . 2001See id. at paragraph one of the syllabus (a trial court is precluded from considering supplemental oral testimony introduced for the first time at a hearing on a motion for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56). | 1 | 9 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Matter of Gratzmiller, 06-Je-42 (9-20-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2025No. 99–CA–101, 2001–Ohio–3235, *2. . . . “[W]hen the terms of a separation agreement are clear and unambiguous, the words used must be given their plain and ordinary meaning and a court must give effect to the agreement’s expressed terms.” Gratzmiller [v. Gratzmiller, 2007-Ohio-4987 ], ¶ 12 [(7th Dist.)], citing Wittstein v. Wittstein, 12th Dist. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
17AP-466 and 17AP-467
green
1 sentence2018Id. in passim. {¶ 8} M.H. appeared in the case for the first time at a hearing on March 31, 2016, over one and one-half years after the initial removal of the children and several months (and two hearings) after the filing of motions for permanent custody. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State ex rel. Smith v. Superior's Brand Meats, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Smith v. Superior’s Brand Meats, Inc. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 408, 411 , 667 N.E.2d 1217 . 2009Smith v. Superior’s Brand Meats, Inc. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 408, 411 , 667 N.E.2d 1217 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Atkins v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2006We have created a very limited exception only in cases involving a first-time claim of mental retardation precluding imposition of the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia (2000), 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 . 2006We have created a very limited exception only in cases involving a first-time claim of mental retardation precluding imposition of the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia (2000), 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Beagle v. Walden
green
1 sentence1999In Stanaczyk v. Fontanez (March 12, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 72130, unreported, this court stated that ""[a] court is precluded from considering supplemental oral testimony introduced for the first time at a hearing on a motion for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56.'" Id., quoting Carrabine Construction Co. v. Chrysler Realty Corp. (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 222 , 495 N.E.2d 952 , syllabus. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Gaydas v. Fusselman
neutral
1 sentence1958In the second syllabus in the case of Gaydas v. Fusselman, 11 Abs 652 , it is said:— “Although §11494 GC, provides only testimony of conversations between husband and wife in the known presence of third person is admissible, objection to such testimony cannot be raised for the first time on error proceedings.” See also Carson v. Beatley, Exrx., et al, 86 Oh Ap 173. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Verkennes v. Corniea
green
1 sentence1950Verkennes v. Corniea, — Minn., —, 38 N. W. (2d), 838 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.