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 3 courts 2005–2026 2 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. Powellgreen2 sentences2018See State v. Powell , 177 Ohio App.3d 825 , 2008-Ohio-4171 , 896 N.E.2d 212 , at ¶ 45. 2018See State v. Powell , 177 Ohio App.3d 825 , 2008-Ohio-4171 , 896 N.E.2d 212 , at ¶ 45. | 6 | 6 |
Irvine v. Stategreen2 sentences2023She did not reference R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(b), which prohibits the payment of benefits to persons who have “refused without good cause to accept an offer of suitable work * * *.” Because the hearing officer limited her decision to R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a), and because the record supports the hearing officer’s finding that Mason quit his job, the court’s analysis will be limited to whether Mason quit without just cause as described in R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a). {¶ 25} “[T]raditionally, just cause, in the statutory sense, is that which, to an ordinarily intelligent person, is a justifiable reason for doi 2023She did not reference R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(b), which prohibits the payment of benefits to persons who have “refused without good cause to accept an offer of suitable work * * *.” Because the hearing officer limited her decision to R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a), and because the record supports the hearing officer’s finding that Mason quit his job, the court’s analysis will be limited to whether Mason quit without just cause as described in R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a). {¶ 25} “[T]raditionally, just cause, in the statutory sense, is that which, to an ordinarily intelligent person, is a justifiable reason for doi | 1 | 3 |
State v. Waltergreen1 sentence2026See Walter, 2022-Ohio-1982, ¶ 46 (9th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Weiss v. Ferro Corp.green1 sentence2019See Weiss v. Ferro Corp., 44 Ohio St.3d 178, 180 , 542 N.E.2d 340 (1989) (under the “mailbox rule,” once a notice is mailed, it is presumed to be received in due course). | 1 | 1 |
Vilimonovic v. Modern Tool & Die Products, Inc.green1 sentence2019See Weiss v. Ferro Corp., 44 Ohio St.3d 178, 180 , 542 N.E.2d 340 (1989) (under the “mailbox rule,” once a notice is mailed, it is presumed to be received in due course). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Millergreen2 sentences2012See Miller v. Miller, 132 Ohio St.3d 424 , 2012-Ohio-2928 , 973 N.E.2d 228 , ¶ 28 (use of the word “may” denotes the granting of discretion). *161 Therefore, on an appeal of the commission’s order of sanctions, our review is limited to whether the commission abused its discretion. 2012See Miller v. Miller, 132 Ohio St.3d 424 , 2012-Ohio-2928 , 973 N.E.2d 228 , ¶ 28 (use of the word “may” denotes the granting of discretion). *161 Therefore, on an appeal of the commission’s order of sanctions, our review is limited to whether the commission abused its discretion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cooperridergreen2 sentences2006See State v. Cooperrider (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 226 , 228 , 448 N.E.2d 452 ; State v. Miller (Mar. 16, 2001), Ross App. No. 00CA2555. {¶ 87} Therefore, we overrule all of Evans' pro se arguments. 2006See State v. Cooperrider (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 226 , 228 , 448 N.E.2d 452 ; State v. Miller (Mar. 16, 2001), Ross App. No. 00CA2555. {¶ 87} Therefore, we overrule all of Evans' pro se arguments. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wheeler v. NN Metal Stampings, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2023Williams No. WM-17-009, 2018-Ohio-2341, at ¶ 10 . 17. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Tzangas, Plakas & Mannos v. Administrator
green
1 sentence2023She did not reference R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(b), which prohibits the payment of benefits to persons who have “refused without good cause to accept an offer of suitable work * * *.” Because the hearing officer limited her decision to R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a), and because the record supports the hearing officer’s finding that Mason quit his job, the court’s analysis will be limited to whether Mason quit without just cause as described in R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a). {¶ 25} “[T]raditionally, just cause, in the statutory sense, is that which, to an ordinarily intelligent person, is a justifiable reason for doi | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Miller v. Miller
green
1 sentence2018This is because, as noted above, the discretion that a trial court enjoys in custody matters "'should be accorded the utmost respect, given the nature of the proceeding and the impact the court's determination will have on the lives of the parties concerned.'" In re J.M., 2009-Ohio-4824 at ¶ 17, quoting Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d at 74 . {¶ 26} Husband believes the trial court's decision to designate Wife as sole residential parent was meant to "punish" him for his "strong personality." Nothing in the record supports such a claim. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Totarella, Unpublished Decision (2-13-2004)
green
1 sentence2018Lake No. 2002- -6- Preble CA2009-09-026 L-147, 2004-Ohio-1175 , wherein the Eleventh District found the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of appellant's two prior convictions in a case charging appellant with carrying a concealed weapon when the statutory language found in R.C. 2923.12(F)(1) only requires proof of a single prior conviction to raise the charge to a fourth- degree felony. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.
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.