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 1 courts 1990–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zuber v. Department of Insurance of Ohiogreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Zuber v. Ohio Dept. of Ins. (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 42 , 516 N.E.2d 244 ; Kordi v. Minot (1987), 40 Ohio App.3d 1 , 531 N.E.2d 318 . {¶ 9} The Ohio Supreme Court has set forth the elements of a cause of action for malicious prosecution as follows: 1) malicious institution of prior proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant; 2) lack of probable cause for the filing of the prior lawsuit; 3) termination of the prior proceedings in plaintiff’s favor; and, 4) seizure of the plaintiff’s person or property during the course of the prior proceedings. 2011See, e.g., Zuber v. Ohio Dept. of Ins. (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 42 , 516 N.E.2d 244 ; Kordi v. Minot (1987), 40 Ohio App.3d 1 , 531 N.E.2d 318 . {¶ 9} The Ohio Supreme Court has set forth the elements of a cause of action for malicious prosecution as follows: 1) malicious institution of prior proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant; 2) lack of probable cause for the filing of the prior lawsuit; 3) termination of the prior proceedings in plaintiff’s favor; and, 4) seizure of the plaintiff’s person or property during the course of the prior proceedings. | 6 | 6 |
Terry v. Caputogreen2 sentences2017See Terry v. Caputo , 115 Ohio St.3d 351 , 2007-Ohio-5023 , 875 N.E.2d 72 , ¶ 31 ("[E]xpert medical testimony is necessary to establish that particular types of mold found in the workplace were the specific cause of the claimants' ailments."). {¶ 17} Because appellant has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that his product liability claim seeks more than economic loss or that any noneconomic damages were actually caused by exposure to harmful mold, he has failed to establish one of the necessary elements for his claim. 2017See Terry v. Caputo , 115 Ohio St.3d 351 , 2007-Ohio-5023 , 875 N.E.2d 72 , ¶ 31 ("[E]xpert medical testimony is necessary to establish that particular types of mold found in the workplace were the specific cause of the claimants' ailments."). {¶ 17} Because appellant has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that his product liability claim seeks more than economic loss or that any noneconomic damages were actually caused by exposure to harmful mold, he has failed to establish one of the necessary elements for his claim. | 1 | 1 |
Scholler v. Schollergreen1 sentence2004See Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth., Inc. (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 284 , 291 (citation omitted) (a complaint that fails to allege the necessary elements of a claim "cannot withstand a motion to dismiss as based upon a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"). {¶ 36} As to Altier's attorney malpractice claim, "[i]t is by now well-established in Ohio that an attorney may not be held liable by third parties as a result of having performed services on behalf of a client, in good faith, unless the third party is in privity with the client for whom the legal ser | 1 | 1 |
Simon v. Zippersteingreen1 sentence2004See Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth., Inc. (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 284 , 291 (citation omitted) (a complaint that fails to allege the necessary elements of a claim "cannot withstand a motion to dismiss as based upon a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"). {¶ 36} As to Altier's attorney malpractice claim, "[i]t is by now well-established in Ohio that an attorney may not be held liable by third parties as a result of having performed services on behalf of a client, in good faith, unless the third party is in privity with the client for whom the legal ser | 1 | 1 |
Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Authority, Inc.green1 sentence2004See Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth., Inc. (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 284 , 291 (citation omitted) (a complaint that fails to allege the necessary elements of a claim "cannot withstand a motion to dismiss as based upon a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"). {¶ 36} As to Altier's attorney malpractice claim, "[i]t is by now well-established in Ohio that an attorney may not be held liable by third parties as a result of having performed services on behalf of a client, in good faith, unless the third party is in privity with the client for whom the legal ser | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Korodi v. Minot
green
2 sentences2011See, e.g., Zuber v. Ohio Dept. of Ins. (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 42 , 516 N.E.2d 244 ; Kordi v. Minot (1987), 40 Ohio App.3d 1 , 531 N.E.2d 318 . {¶ 9} The Ohio Supreme Court has set forth the elements of a cause of action for malicious prosecution as follows: 1) malicious institution of prior proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant; 2) lack of probable cause for the filing of the prior lawsuit; 3) termination of the prior proceedings in plaintiff’s favor; and, 4) seizure of the plaintiff’s person or property during the course of the prior proceedings. 2011See, e.g., Zuber v. Ohio Dept. of Ins. (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 42 , 516 N.E.2d 244 ; Kordi v. Minot (1987), 40 Ohio App.3d 1 , 531 N.E.2d 318 . {¶ 9} The Ohio Supreme Court has set forth the elements of a cause of action for malicious prosecution as follows: 1) malicious institution of prior proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant; 2) lack of probable cause for the filing of the prior lawsuit; 3) termination of the prior proceedings in plaintiff’s favor; and, 4) seizure of the plaintiff’s person or property during the course of the prior proceedings. | 6 | 1999–2011 |
Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co.
green
2 sentences2018Evans v. Ohio State Univ. , 112 Ohio App.3d 724 , 738, 680 N.E.2d 161 (10th Dist.1996), citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc. , 15 Ohio St.3d 75 , 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). {¶ 15} Building on this standard in the specialized context of liability for the acts of an agent, Ohio courts have set forth the necessary elements of a claim in this context: " '(1) the existence of an employment relationship; (2) the employee's incompetence; (3) the employer's actual or constructive knowledge of such incompetence; (4) the employee's act or omission causing the plaintiff's injuries; and (5) the emp 2018Evans v. Ohio State Univ. , 112 Ohio App.3d 724 , 738, 680 N.E.2d 161 (10th Dist.1996), citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc. , 15 Ohio St.3d 75 , 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). {¶ 15} Building on this standard in the specialized context of liability for the acts of an agent, Ohio courts have set forth the necessary elements of a claim in this context: " '(1) the existence of an employment relationship; (2) the employee's incompetence; (3) the employer's actual or constructive knowledge of such incompetence; (4) the employee's act or omission causing the plaintiff's injuries; and (5) the emp | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Evans v. Ohio State Univ. , 112 Ohio App.3d 724 , 738, 680 N.E.2d 161 (10th Dist.1996), citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc. , 15 Ohio St.3d 75 , 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). {¶ 15} Building on this standard in the specialized context of liability for the acts of an agent, Ohio courts have set forth the necessary elements of a claim in this context: " '(1) the existence of an employment relationship; (2) the employee's incompetence; (3) the employer's actual or constructive knowledge of such incompetence; (4) the employee's act or omission causing the plaintiff's injuries; and (5) the emp 2018Evans v. Ohio State Univ. , 112 Ohio App.3d 724 , 738, 680 N.E.2d 161 (10th Dist.1996), citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc. , 15 Ohio St.3d 75 , 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). {¶ 15} Building on this standard in the specialized context of liability for the acts of an agent, Ohio courts have set forth the necessary elements of a claim in this context: " '(1) the existence of an employment relationship; (2) the employee's incompetence; (3) the employer's actual or constructive knowledge of such incompetence; (4) the employee's act or omission causing the plaintiff's injuries; and (5) the emp | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Evans v. Ohio State University
green
2 sentences2018Evans v. Ohio State Univ. , 112 Ohio App.3d 724 , 738, 680 N.E.2d 161 (10th Dist.1996), citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc. , 15 Ohio St.3d 75 , 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). {¶ 15} Building on this standard in the specialized context of liability for the acts of an agent, Ohio courts have set forth the necessary elements of a claim in this context: " '(1) the existence of an employment relationship; (2) the employee's incompetence; (3) the employer's actual or constructive knowledge of such incompetence; (4) the employee's act or omission causing the plaintiff's injuries; and (5) the emp 2018Evans v. Ohio State Univ. , 112 Ohio App.3d 724 , 738, 680 N.E.2d 161 (10th Dist.1996), citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc. , 15 Ohio St.3d 75 , 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). {¶ 15} Building on this standard in the specialized context of liability for the acts of an agent, Ohio courts have set forth the necessary elements of a claim in this context: " '(1) the existence of an employment relationship; (2) the employee's incompetence; (3) the employer's actual or constructive knowledge of such incompetence; (4) the employee's act or omission causing the plaintiff's injuries; and (5) the emp | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Smith v. Kelly
green
1 sentence2014Clark No. 2011 CA 77, 2012-Ohio-2547, ¶ 19 . “[A] plaintiff may make a prima facie showing of discrimination by 1 In its order awarding summary judgment to Appellees, the trial court determined that, although Mr. Dukes also had alleged retaliation in his complaint, he failed to set forth the necessary elements of the claim, and the trial court dismissed the claim on that basis. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Amf, Inc. v. Mravec
green
1 sentence2011“An ‘action on an account’ is ‘merely a pleading device used to consolidate several different claims one party has against another.’” Cooper & Pachell v. Haslage (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 704, 707 , quoting AMF, Inc. v. Mravec (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 29, 31 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Cooper & Pachell v. Haslage
green
1 sentence2011“An ‘action on an account’ is ‘merely a pleading device used to consolidate several different claims one party has against another.’” Cooper & Pachell v. Haslage (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 704, 707 , quoting AMF, Inc. v. Mravec (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 29, 31 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc. (1990) 49 Ohio St.3d 228 , 551 N.E.2d 981 . {¶ 56} In Painter v. Graley (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 377 , 639 N.E.2d 51 , the Ohio Supreme Court established the necessary elements for a claim of discharge in violation of public policy. 2003Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc. (1990) 49 Ohio St.3d 228 , 551 N.E.2d 981 . {¶ 56} In Painter v. Graley (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 377 , 639 N.E.2d 51 , the Ohio Supreme Court established the necessary elements for a claim of discharge in violation of public policy. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Painter v. Graley
green
2 sentences2003Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc. (1990) 49 Ohio St.3d 228 , 551 N.E.2d 981 . {¶ 56} In Painter v. Graley (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 377 , 639 N.E.2d 51 , the Ohio Supreme Court established the necessary elements for a claim of discharge in violation of public policy. 2003Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc. (1990) 49 Ohio St.3d 228 , 551 N.E.2d 981 . {¶ 56} In Painter v. Graley (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 377 , 639 N.E.2d 51 , the Ohio Supreme Court established the necessary elements for a claim of discharge in violation of public policy. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Crawford v. Euclid National Bank
green
2 sentences1998Bank (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 135 , 19 OBR 341, 483 N.E.2d 1168 , as follows: “In order to state a cause of action for malicious civil prosecution in Ohio, four essential elements must be alleged by the plaintiff: (1) malicious institution of prior proceedings against the plaintiff by defendant, (2) lack of probable cause for the filing of the prior lawsuit, (3) termination of the prior proceedings in plaintiffs favor, and (4) seizure of plaintiffs person or property during the course of the prior proceedings.” The malice required for such an action is “the state of mind under which a person inte 1998Bank (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 135 , 19 OBR 341, 483 N.E.2d 1168 , as follows: “In order to state a cause of action for malicious civil prosecution in Ohio, four essential elements must be alleged by the plaintiff: (1) malicious institution of prior proceedings against the plaintiff by defendant, (2) lack of probable cause for the filing of the prior lawsuit, (3) termination of the prior proceedings in plaintiffs favor, and (4) seizure of plaintiffs person or property during the course of the prior proceedings.” The malice required for such an action is “the state of mind under which a person inte | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Criss v. Springfield Township
green
2 sentences1998Bank (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 135 , 19 OBR 341, 483 N.E.2d 1168 , as follows: “In order to state a cause of action for malicious civil prosecution in Ohio, four essential elements must be alleged by the plaintiff: (1) malicious institution of prior proceedings against the plaintiff by defendant, (2) lack of probable cause for the filing of the prior lawsuit, (3) termination of the prior proceedings in plaintiffs favor, and (4) seizure of plaintiffs person or property during the course of the prior proceedings.” The malice required for such an action is “the state of mind under which a person inte 1998Bank (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 135 , 19 OBR 341, 483 N.E.2d 1168 , as follows: “In order to state a cause of action for malicious civil prosecution in Ohio, four essential elements must be alleged by the plaintiff: (1) malicious institution of prior proceedings against the plaintiff by defendant, (2) lack of probable cause for the filing of the prior lawsuit, (3) termination of the prior proceedings in plaintiffs favor, and (4) seizure of plaintiffs person or property during the course of the prior proceedings.” The malice required for such an action is “the state of mind under which a person inte | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Robb v. Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998The necessary elements of a claim of malicious civil prosecution are stated in Robb v. Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 264 , 662 N.E.2d 9 , syllabus, citing Crawford v. Euclid Natl. 1998The necessary elements of a claim of malicious civil prosecution are stated in Robb v. Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 264 , 662 N.E.2d 9 , syllabus, citing Crawford v. Euclid Natl. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Nestor v. Nestor
green
2 sentences1990The first assignment of error is: “The judgment of the trial court was against the manifest weight of the evidence in its finding that the essential elements of a common-law marriage were not established.” R.C. 3105.12 states: “Proof of cohabitation and reputation of the marriage of the parties is competent evidence to prove such marriage, and within the discretion of the court, may be sufficient therefor.” The Ohio Supreme Court in Nestor v. Nestor (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 143, 146-147 , 15 OBR 291, 293-294, 472 N.E.2d 1091, 1094-1095 , sets forth the necessary elements and standard of proof req 1990The first assignment of error is: “The judgment of the trial court was against the manifest weight of the evidence in its finding that the essential elements of a common-law marriage were not established.” R.C. 3105.12 states: “Proof of cohabitation and reputation of the marriage of the parties is competent evidence to prove such marriage, and within the discretion of the court, may be sufficient therefor.” The Ohio Supreme Court in Nestor v. Nestor (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 143, 146-147 , 15 OBR 291, 293-294, 472 N.E.2d 1091, 1094-1095 , sets forth the necessary elements and standard of proof req | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.