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 1988–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gilbraith v. Hixsongreen2 sentences2001We wholeheartedly agree with the lower court's assessment that "appellant had the opportunity to challenge paternity * * * prior to divorce and in fact did challenge and establish that [appellee] was not the father of the child she was expecting at the time of the divorce, the Court finds that the parentage determination in this matter is res judicata * * *." See, generally, Cadle Co. v. White (Apr. 16, 1999), Hamilton App. No. C-980492, unreported, discretionary appeal not allowed (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 1466 , 715 N.E.2d 568 (holding that the doctrine of res judicata may serve as the basis to 2001We wholeheartedly agree with the lower court's assessment that "appellant had the opportunity to challenge paternity * * * prior to divorce and in fact did challenge and establish that [appellee] was not the father of the child she was expecting at the time of the divorce, the Court finds that the parentage determination in this matter is res judicata * * *." See, generally, Cadle Co. v. White (Apr. 16, 1999), Hamilton App. No. C-980492, unreported, discretionary appeal not allowed (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 1466 , 715 N.E.2d 568 (holding that the doctrine of res judicata may serve as the basis to | 3 | 14 |
Farley v. Farleygreen2 sentences1996Chapter 3111.”); Farley v. Farley (1992), 85 Ohio App.3d 113, 116 , 619 N.E.2d 427, 429 (R.C. 3107.15 denies standing to relatives of parents whose parental rights were terminated by adoption). 1996Chapter 3111.”); Farley v. Farley (1992), 85 Ohio App.3d 113, 116 , 619 N.E.2d 427, 429 (R.C. 3107.15 denies standing to relatives of parents whose parental rights were terminated by adoption). | 2 | 2 |
Coulson v. Coulsongreen2 sentences2001We wholeheartedly agree with the lower court's assessment that "appellant had the opportunity to challenge paternity * * * prior to divorce and in fact did challenge and establish that [appellee] was not the father of the child she was expecting at the time of the divorce, the Court finds that the parentage determination in this matter is res judicata * * *." See, generally, Cadle Co. v. White (Apr. 16, 1999), Hamilton App. No. C-980492, unreported, discretionary appeal not allowed (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 1466 , 715 N.E.2d 568 (holding that the doctrine of res judicata may serve as the basis to 2001We wholeheartedly agree with the lower court's assessment that "appellant had the opportunity to challenge paternity * * * prior to divorce and in fact did challenge and establish that [appellee] was not the father of the child she was expecting at the time of the divorce, the Court finds that the parentage determination in this matter is res judicata * * *." See, generally, Cadle Co. v. White (Apr. 16, 1999), Hamilton App. No. C-980492, unreported, discretionary appeal not allowed (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 1466 , 715 N.E.2d 568 (holding that the doctrine of res judicata may serve as the basis to | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022As pointed out in Smith, “[t]he Ohio Supreme Court has recognized ‘that res judicata is not a shield to protect the blameworthy.’ ” Smith at ¶ 9, quoting Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 488, 491 , 756 N.E.2d 657 (2001). {¶23} As argued by Appellant, this Court recently applied the doctrine of res judicata to paternity proceedings, relying on precedent from the Supreme Court of Ohio: “The doctrine of res judicata can be invoked to give conclusive effect to a determination of parentage contained in a dissolution decree or a legitimation order, thereby barring a subsequent paternity 2022As pointed out in Smith, “[t]he Ohio Supreme Court has recognized ‘that res judicata is not a shield to protect the blameworthy.’ ” Smith at ¶ 9, quoting Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 488, 491 , 756 N.E.2d 657 (2001). {¶23} As argued by Appellant, this Court recently applied the doctrine of res judicata to paternity proceedings, relying on precedent from the Supreme Court of Ohio: “The doctrine of res judicata can be invoked to give conclusive effect to a determination of parentage contained in a dissolution decree or a legitimation order, thereby barring a subsequent paternity | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Williams v. Williams
green
1 sentence2001We wholeheartedly agree with the lower court's assessment that "appellant had the opportunity to challenge paternity * * * prior to divorce and in fact did challenge and establish that [appellee] was not the father of the child she was expecting at the time of the divorce, the Court finds that the parentage determination in this matter is res judicata * * *." See, generally, Cadle Co. v. White (Apr. 16, 1999), Hamilton App. No. C-980492, unreported, discretionary appeal not allowed (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 1466 , 715 N.E.2d 568 (holding that the doctrine of res judicata may serve as the basis to | 1 | 2001–2001 |
York v. Mayfield Neurological Inst., Inc.
green
1 sentence2001We wholeheartedly agree with the lower court's assessment that "appellant had the opportunity to challenge paternity * * * prior to divorce and in fact did challenge and establish that [appellee] was not the father of the child she was expecting at the time of the divorce, the Court finds that the parentage determination in this matter is res judicata * * *." See, generally, Cadle Co. v. White (Apr. 16, 1999), Hamilton App. No. C-980492, unreported, discretionary appeal not allowed (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 1466 , 715 N.E.2d 568 (holding that the doctrine of res judicata may serve as the basis to | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Strack v. Pelton
green
2 sentences1998Gilbraith v. Hixson (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 127, 131 , 512 N.E.2d 956, 961 (the doctrine of res judicata can be invoked to give conclusive effect to a determination of parentage contained in a dissolution decree or a legitimation order). 2 Mr. Leguillon never attempted to move for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), presumably based upon the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Strack v. Felton (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 172 , 637 N.E.2d 914 . 1998Gilbraith v. Hixson (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 127, 131 , 512 N.E.2d 956, 961 (the doctrine of res judicata can be invoked to give conclusive effect to a determination of parentage contained in a dissolution decree or a legitimation order). 2 Mr. Leguillon never attempted to move for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), presumably based upon the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Strack v. Felton (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 172 , 637 N.E.2d 914 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In Re Custody of Davis
neutral
2 sentences1995It has been held that an order of legitimacy issued pursuant to R.C. 2105.18 “is a judicial determination of parentage or paternity” which “establishes a full parent-child relationship for all legal purposes.” In re Custody of Davis (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 81, 83 , 534 N.E.2d 945, 947 . 1 The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata can be invoked to give conclusive effect to a determination of parentage contained in a dissolution decree or a legitimation order, thereby barring a subsequent paternity action brought pursuant to R.C. 1995It has been held that an order of legitimacy issued pursuant to R.C. 2105.18 “is a judicial determination of parentage or paternity” which “establishes a full parent-child relationship for all legal purposes.” In re Custody of Davis (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 81, 83 , 534 N.E.2d 945, 947 . 1 The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata can be invoked to give conclusive effect to a determination of parentage contained in a dissolution decree or a legitimation order, thereby barring a subsequent paternity action brought pursuant to R.C. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Norwood v. McDonald
green
1 sentence1988Chapter 3111.” See, generally, Norwood v. McDonald (1943), 142 Ohio St. 299 , 27 O. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.