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.
14 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Estate of Garzagreen1 sentence2026See Civ.R. 1(C); Estate of Garza v. Onesto, 28 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 2016-Ohio-5531, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen1 sentence2025Abuse of discretion “connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). {¶19} As it relates to Ms. Morgan’s motion, Crim.R. 33 states, in relevant part: (A) Grounds. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morgangreen2 sentences2019State v. Morgan, 2018-Ohio-319 , 104 N.E.3d 941, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.). 2019State v. Morgan, 2018-Ohio-319 , 104 N.E.3d 941, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Danongreen2 sentences2019We once again disagree with Morgan’s claim. {¶ 96} “The trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for a continuance.” State v. Danon, 2018-Ohio-419 , 105 N.E.3d 596, ¶ 28 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Bones, 2d Dist. 2019We once again disagree with Morgan’s claim. {¶ 96} “The trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for a continuance.” State v. Danon, 2018-Ohio-419 , 105 N.E.3d 596, ¶ 28 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Bones, 2d Dist. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clintongreen2 sentences2019In her Objections to the Magistrate’s Decision, Morgan contended that “she did not leave of her own free will and not return as written in the Magistrate’s Decision.” The magistrate and Guardian ad Litem testified contrariwise, and the domestic relations court accepted their testimony inasmuch as Morgan’s objection was overruled. 10 deprived herself of the opportunity to participate at the June 9 hearing (and, so, cross- examine Sassya’s witnesses), had ample opportunity to present her own evidence at the June 29 hearing, and never proffered any argument as to how proceeding on June 9 compromi 2019In her Objections to the Magistrate’s Decision, Morgan contended that “she did not leave of her own free will and not return as written in the Magistrate’s Decision.” The magistrate and Guardian ad Litem testified contrariwise, and the domestic relations court accepted their testimony inasmuch as Morgan’s objection was overruled. 10 deprived herself of the opportunity to participate at the June 9 hearing (and, so, cross- examine Sassya’s witnesses), had ample opportunity to present her own evidence at the June 29 hearing, and never proffered any argument as to how proceeding on June 9 compromi | 1 | 1 |
City of Cleveland v. Winchellgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Cleveland v. Winchell (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 186 , 189 , 3 OBR 212 , 444 N.E.2d 465 . {¶ 30} Under the same assignment of error, Morgan further asserts that his complaint should be dismissed because the trial court failed to rule on the aforementioned magistrate's decision. {¶ 31} Our review of the record indicates that Morgan filed timely objections to the magistrate's decision on April 20, 2007. 2008See, e.g., Cleveland v. Winchell (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 186 , 189 , 3 OBR 212 , 444 N.E.2d 465 . {¶ 30} Under the same assignment of error, Morgan further asserts that his complaint should be dismissed because the trial court failed to rule on the aforementioned magistrate's decision. {¶ 31} Our review of the record indicates that Morgan filed timely objections to the magistrate's decision on April 20, 2007. | 1 | 1 |
Drake v. Buchergreen2 sentences2006If several propositions of law are presented, the argument shall be divided with each proposition set forth as a subheading.” {¶ 22} New Lexington contends that Morgan’s brief contains no propositions of law and does not contain “anything remotely resembling that which could be used as this court’s syllabus.” “The purpose of this rule is to present to the court in concise form the legal issues involved in the cause.” Drake v. Bucher, 5 Ohio St.2d at 39 , 34 O.O.2d 53 , 213 N.E.2d 182 . 2006If several propositions of law are presented, the argument shall be divided with each proposition set forth as a subheading.” {¶ 22} New Lexington contends that Morgan’s brief contains no propositions of law and does not contain “anything remotely resembling that which could be used as this court’s syllabus.” “The purpose of this rule is to present to the court in concise form the legal issues involved in the cause.” Drake v. Bucher, 5 Ohio St.2d at 39 , 34 O.O.2d 53 , 213 N.E.2d 182 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Fryer
green
2 sentences2000To demonstrate and support the application of the Morgan analysis, Appellant cites to numerous cases, most notably, our decision in Nationwide Insurance Co. v. Fryer (1990), 62 Ohio App.3d 905 . 2000To demonstrate and support the application of the Morgan analysis, Appellant cites to numerous cases, most notably, our decision in Nationwide Insurance Co. v. Fryer (1990), 62 Ohio App.3d 905 . | 2 | 2000–2001 |
Morgan v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2020But Madison maintains that a juror who indicates a preference for an automatic death penalty is biased under Morgan even if the juror states that he or she will follow the law. {¶ 49} It is true that a Morgan challenge may not be denied based merely on a juror’s answers to “general questions of fairness and impartiality.” (Emphasis added.) Morgan, 504 U.S. at 735 , 112 S.Ct. 2222 , 119 L.Ed.2d 492 . 2020But Madison maintains that a juror who indicates a preference for an automatic death penalty is biased under Morgan even if the juror states that he or she will follow the law. {¶ 49} It is true that a Morgan challenge may not be denied based merely on a juror’s answers to “general questions of fairness and impartiality.” (Emphasis added.) Morgan, 504 U.S. at 735 , 112 S.Ct. 2222 , 119 L.Ed.2d 492 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Perez
green
2 sentences2020But juror No. 5 “was not merely making a general promise to be fair or to uphold the law.” State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 , 2009-Ohio-6179 , 920 N.E.2d 104, ¶ 171 . 2020But juror No. 5 “was not merely making a general promise to be fair or to uphold the law.” State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 , 2009-Ohio-6179 , 920 N.E.2d 104, ¶ 171 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Scott Elliott Smith Co. v. Carasalina, L.L.C.
neutral
1 sentence2017No. 16AP-488 4 Carasalina, LLC, 192 Ohio App.3d 794 , 2011-Ohio-1602 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Brand
green
1 sentence2017Hamilton No. C-150590, 2016-Ohio-7456, at ¶ 27 . {¶20} During its case-in-chief, the state introduced 0ver Morgan’s objection recordings of various telephone calls that Morgan had made while incarcerated in the Hamilton County Justice Center. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel
green
2 sentences2016Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253 , 703 N.E.2d 304 (1998). {¶ 5} Judge Fais has performed the duty requested by ruling on Morgan’s motion to vacate. 2016Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253 , 703 N.E.2d 304 (1998). {¶ 5} Judge Fais has performed the duty requested by ruling on Morgan’s motion to vacate. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Morgan, Unpublished Decision (1-17-2006)
green
1 sentence2008No. 17-05-26, 2006-Ohio-145 . {¶ 4} In April 2008, Morgan filed a "Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Void Judgment and Sentence and For a Request for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law." Morgan's motion contended that his 1997 conviction for murder was void because the trial court erred in instructing the jury. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Richman Bros. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America
neutral
2 sentences2005Rickman Bros. v. Amalgamated Workers (1956), 101 Ohio App. 459, 465 , 1 O.O.2d 385 , 132 N.E.2d 769 . {¶ 31} In sustaining the University’s third assignment of error, we have concluded that the trial court erred, to the University’s prejudice, when it entered *36 an order precluding the University from taking Morgan’s deposition for purposes of responding to Morgan’s motion for summary judgment. 2005Rickman Bros. v. Amalgamated Workers (1956), 101 Ohio App. 459, 465 , 1 O.O.2d 385 , 132 N.E.2d 769 . {¶ 31} In sustaining the University’s third assignment of error, we have concluded that the trial court erred, to the University’s prejudice, when it entered *36 an order precluding the University from taking Morgan’s deposition for purposes of responding to Morgan’s motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.