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.
13 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mathisgreen2 sentences2016The Supreme Court defined what constitutes “special justification” in its decision in Galatis: “[I]n Ohio, a prior decision of the Supreme Court may be overruled where (1) the decision was wrongly decided at that time, or changes in circumstances no longer justify continued adherence to the decision, (2) the decision defies practical workability, and (3) abandoning the precedent would not create an undue hardship for those who have relied upon it.” Id. at ¶ 48; see also State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2006–Ohio–855, 846 N.E.2d 1, fn. 7 (noting that courts must adhere to prior precedent un 2016The Supreme Court defined what constitutes “special justification” in its decision in Galatis: “[I]n Ohio, a prior decision of the Supreme Court may be overruled where (1) the decision was wrongly decided at that time, or changes in circumstances no longer justify continued adherence to the decision, (2) the decision defies practical workability, and (3) abandoning the precedent would not create an undue hardship for those who have relied upon it.” Id. at ¶ 48; see also State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2006–Ohio–855, 846 N.E.2d 1, fn. 7 (noting that courts must adhere to prior precedent un | 2 | 2 |
State v. Harper (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2020Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co., 155 Ohio St.3d 78 , 2018-Ohio-3890 , 119 N.E.3d 386 , but we have also overruled prior decisions without explicitly applying the test, see, e.g., State v. Harper, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020-Ohio-2913 , __ N.E.3d __. {¶ 25} For those who find the Galatis factors useful in determining whether to overrule precedent, those factors all counsel in favor of doing so here. 2020Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co., 155 Ohio St.3d 78 , 2018-Ohio-3890 , 119 N.E.3d 386 , but we have also overruled prior decisions without explicitly applying the test, see, e.g., State v. Harper, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020-Ohio-2913 , __ N.E.3d __. {¶ 25} For those who find the Galatis factors useful in determining whether to overrule precedent, those factors all counsel in favor of doing so here. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Henderson (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2024See State v. Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285, 2020-Ohio-4784, 162 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 30; id. at ¶ 85 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment only) (citing cases). 2024See State v. Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285, 2020-Ohio-4784, 162 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 30; id. at ¶ 85 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment only) (citing cases). | 1 | 1 |
Cohens v. Virginiagreen2 sentences2020See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 399 , 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) (“It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used”); Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306, at ¶ 12 (“we are not bound by any perceived implications that may have been inferred from” a prior decision). {¶ 84} After deciding Galatis, it did not take this court long to limit the reach of that test. 2020See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 399 , 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) (“It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used”); Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306, at ¶ 12 (“we are not bound by any perceived implications that may have been inferred from” a prior decision). {¶ 84} After deciding Galatis, it did not take this court long to limit the reach of that test. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Paynegreen2 sentences2020See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 399 , 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) (“It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used”); Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306, at ¶ 12 (“we are not bound by any perceived implications that may have been inferred from” a prior decision). {¶ 84} After deciding Galatis, it did not take this court long to limit the reach of that test. 2020See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 399 , 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) (“It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used”); Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306, at ¶ 12 (“we are not bound by any perceived implications that may have been inferred from” a prior decision). {¶ 84} After deciding Galatis, it did not take this court long to limit the reach of that test. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fischergreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , at ¶ 36, overruled on other grounds in State v. 16 January Term, 2020 Harper, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-2913 , ___ N.E.3d ___; State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 , 2010-Ohio-3830 , 935 N.E.2d 26, ¶ 45 . {¶ 30} In short, we have been anything but consistent in applying the Galatis test, we are not compelled to apply it here, and we decline to apply it here. 2020See, e.g., Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , at ¶ 36, overruled on other grounds in State v. 16 January Term, 2020 Harper, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-2913 , ___ N.E.3d ___; State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 , 2010-Ohio-3830 , 935 N.E.2d 26, ¶ 45 . {¶ 30} In short, we have been anything but consistent in applying the Galatis test, we are not compelled to apply it here, and we decline to apply it here. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bodykegreen2 sentences2020We have said that it applies when we consider overruling precedent on substantive law, State v. Silverman, 121 Ohio St.3d 581 , 2009-Ohio- 1576, 906 N.E.2d 427, ¶ 31 , and that it is most helpful in cases involving contract, property, and tort principles, State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2010-Ohio-2424 , 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 35-37 (lead opinion). 2020We have said that it applies when we consider overruling precedent on substantive law, State v. Silverman, 121 Ohio St.3d 581 , 2009-Ohio- 1576, 906 N.E.2d 427, ¶ 31 , and that it is most helpful in cases involving contract, property, and tort principles, State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2010-Ohio-2424 , 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 35-37 (lead opinion). | 1 | 1 |
Garrett v. City of Sanduskygreen2 sentences2014See Garrett v. Sandusky, 68 Ohio St.3d 139, 144 , 624 N.E.2d 704 (1994) (Pfeifer, J., concurring). {¶ 20} Second, I continue to believe that the Galatis test (established in Westfield Ins. 2014See Garrett v. Sandusky, 68 Ohio St.3d 139, 144 , 624 N.E.2d 704 (1994) (Pfeifer, J., concurring). {¶ 20} Second, I continue to believe that the Galatis test (established in Westfield Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Allied Holdings v. Meade, 8-06-13, Unpublished Decision (12-18-2006)green1 sentence2010No. 8-06-13, 2006-Ohio-6682, ¶14 (applying same). | 1 | 1 |
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnsongreen2 sentences2008See Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 , 2007-Ohio-6948 , 880 N.E.2d 420 (distinguishing but not overruling our decision in State ex rel. 2008See Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 , 2007-Ohio-6948 , 880 N.E.2d 420 (distinguishing but not overruling our decision in State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2020But see State v. Williams, 103 Ohio St.3d 112 , 2004-Ohio-4747 , 814 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 11 , superseded by statute as stated in State v. White, 132 Ohio St.3d 344 , 2012-Ohio- 2583, 972 N.E.2d 534 , (applying the Galatis test and declining to overrule precedent). 2020But see State v. Williams, 103 Ohio St.3d 112 , 2004-Ohio-4747 , 814 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 11 , superseded by statute as stated in State v. White, 132 Ohio St.3d 344 , 2012-Ohio- 2583, 972 N.E.2d 534 , (applying the Galatis test and declining to overrule precedent). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2020But see State v. Williams, 103 Ohio St.3d 112 , 2004-Ohio-4747 , 814 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 11 , superseded by statute as stated in State v. White, 132 Ohio St.3d 344 , 2012-Ohio- 2583, 972 N.E.2d 534 , (applying the Galatis test and declining to overrule precedent). 2020But see State v. Williams, 103 Ohio St.3d 112 , 2004-Ohio-4747 , 814 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 11 , superseded by statute as stated in State v. White, 132 Ohio St.3d 344 , 2012-Ohio- 2583, 972 N.E.2d 534 , (applying the Galatis test and declining to overrule precedent). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Westfield Insurance v. Galatis
green
2 sentences2006According to that standard, an earlier decision of the Ohio Supreme Court may be overruled when “(1) the decision was wrongly decided at that time, or changes in circumstances no longer justify continued adherence to the decision, (2) the decision defies practical workability, and (3) abandoning the precedent would not create an undue hardship for those who have relied upon it.” Id. at syllabus. {¶ 27} Applying the Galatis test, we decline to overrule Moore , but instead limit Moore to insurance contracts governed by the S.B. 20 version of R.C. 3937.18. 2006According to that standard, an earlier decision of the Ohio Supreme Court may be overruled when “(1) the decision was wrongly decided at that time, or changes in circumstances no longer justify continued adherence to the decision, (2) the decision defies practical workability, and (3) abandoning the precedent would not create an undue hardship for those who have relied upon it.” Id. at syllabus. {¶ 27} Applying the Galatis test, we decline to overrule Moore , but instead limit Moore to insurance contracts governed by the S.B. 20 version of R.C. 3937.18. | 4 | 2006–2014 |
State v. Silverman
green
2 sentences2020We have said that it applies when we consider overruling precedent on substantive law, State v. Silverman, 121 Ohio St.3d 581 , 2009-Ohio- 1576, 906 N.E.2d 427, ¶ 31 , and that it is most helpful in cases involving contract, property, and tort principles, State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2010-Ohio-2424 , 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 35-37 (lead opinion). 2020We have said that it applies when we consider overruling precedent on substantive law, State v. Silverman, 121 Ohio St.3d 581 , 2009-Ohio- 1576, 906 N.E.2d 427, ¶ 31 , and that it is most helpful in cases involving contract, property, and tort principles, State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2010-Ohio-2424 , 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 35-37 (lead opinion). | 2 | 2015–2020 |
State ex rel. Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co. (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2020Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co., 155 Ohio St.3d 78 , 2018-Ohio-3890 , 119 N.E.3d 386 , but we have also overruled prior decisions without explicitly applying the test, see, e.g., State v. Harper, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020-Ohio-2913 , __ N.E.3d __. {¶ 25} For those who find the Galatis factors useful in determining whether to overrule precedent, those factors all counsel in favor of doing so here. 2020Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co., 155 Ohio St.3d 78 , 2018-Ohio-3890 , 119 N.E.3d 386 , but we have also overruled prior decisions without explicitly applying the test, see, e.g., State v. Harper, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020-Ohio-2913 , __ N.E.3d __. {¶ 25} For those who find the Galatis factors useful in determining whether to overrule precedent, those factors all counsel in favor of doing so here. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2020See, e.g., Silverman at ¶ 33 (the Galatis test does not apply in deciding whether to overrule precedent interpreting procedural and evidentiary rules, where there is little reliance interest); Bodyke at ¶ 37 (lead opinion) (the Galatis test is “not controlling” in cases that present a constitutional question); State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010- Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061 , ¶ 45 (lead opinion), abrogation on other grounds recognized in State v. Jackson, 149 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2016-Ohio-5488 , 73 N.E.3d 414 (the Galatis test is unnecessary in cases involving constitutional protections bec 2020See, e.g., Silverman at ¶ 33 (the Galatis test does not apply in deciding whether to overrule precedent interpreting procedural and evidentiary rules, where there is little reliance interest); Bodyke at ¶ 37 (lead opinion) (the Galatis test is “not controlling” in cases that present a constitutional question); State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010- Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061 , ¶ 45 (lead opinion), abrogation on other grounds recognized in State v. Jackson, 149 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2016-Ohio-5488 , 73 N.E.3d 414 (the Galatis test is unnecessary in cases involving constitutional protections bec | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Bezak
red
2 sentences2020We did not employ the Galatis test in Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , at ¶ 36, in which this court overruled the part of the holding in State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 , 2007-Ohio-3250 , 868 N.E.2d 961 , that requires a de novo sentencing hearing to correct a trial court’s failure to impose a statutorily mandated term of postrelease control. 2020We did not employ the Galatis test in Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , at ¶ 36, in which this court overruled the part of the holding in State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 , 2007-Ohio-3250 , 868 N.E.2d 961 , that requires a de novo sentencing hearing to correct a trial court’s failure to impose a statutorily mandated term of postrelease control. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2020See, e.g., Silverman at ¶ 33 (the Galatis test does not apply in deciding whether to overrule precedent interpreting procedural and evidentiary rules, where there is little reliance interest); Bodyke at ¶ 37 (lead opinion) (the Galatis test is “not controlling” in cases that present a constitutional question); State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010- Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061 , ¶ 45 (lead opinion), abrogation on other grounds recognized in State v. Jackson, 149 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2016-Ohio-5488 , 73 N.E.3d 414 (the Galatis test is unnecessary in cases involving constitutional protections bec 2020See, e.g., Silverman at ¶ 33 (the Galatis test does not apply in deciding whether to overrule precedent interpreting procedural and evidentiary rules, where there is little reliance interest); Bodyke at ¶ 37 (lead opinion) (the Galatis test is “not controlling” in cases that present a constitutional question); State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010- Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061 , ¶ 45 (lead opinion), abrogation on other grounds recognized in State v. Jackson, 149 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2016-Ohio-5488 , 73 N.E.3d 414 (the Galatis test is unnecessary in cases involving constitutional protections bec | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Horner
green
2 sentences2020See, e.g., Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , at ¶ 36, overruled on other grounds in State v. 16 January Term, 2020 Harper, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-2913 , ___ N.E.3d ___; State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 , 2010-Ohio-3830 , 935 N.E.2d 26, ¶ 45 . {¶ 30} In short, we have been anything but consistent in applying the Galatis test, we are not compelled to apply it here, and we decline to apply it here. 2020See, e.g., Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , at ¶ 36, overruled on other grounds in State v. 16 January Term, 2020 Harper, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-2913 , ___ N.E.3d ___; State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 , 2010-Ohio-3830 , 935 N.E.2d 26, ¶ 45 . {¶ 30} In short, we have been anything but consistent in applying the Galatis test, we are not compelled to apply it here, and we decline to apply it here. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Ford (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2020State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2019-Ohio-4539 , 140 N.E.3d 616 , ¶ 100. {¶ 86} The protection of individual liberty, which is at stake in a criminal proceeding, should never depend on a party’s ability to prove that the three prongs of the Galatis test have been met. 2020State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2019-Ohio-4539 , 140 N.E.3d 616 , ¶ 100. {¶ 86} The protection of individual liberty, which is at stake in a criminal proceeding, should never depend on a party’s ability to prove that the three prongs of the Galatis test have been met. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products Co.
green
2 sentences2016Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 , 2010-Ohio-1027 , 927 N.E.2d 1066 , ¶ 90-91. 27 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 86} Second, in any event, the present situation satisfies the Galatis test in that (1) Corrigan was wrongly decided at the time, (2) Corrigan defies practical workability, and (3) abandoning Corrigan would not create an undue hardship for those who have relied on it. 2016Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 , 2010-Ohio-1027 , 927 N.E.2d 1066 , ¶ 90-91. 27 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 86} Second, in any event, the present situation satisfies the Galatis test in that (1) Corrigan was wrongly decided at the time, (2) Corrigan defies practical workability, and (3) abandoning Corrigan would not create an undue hardship for those who have relied on it. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State ex rel. Citizen Action for a Livable Montgomery v. Hamilton County Board of Elections
green
2 sentences2014Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 437 , 2007-Ohio-5379 , 875 N.E.2d 902 , ¶ 35. {¶ 41} But the strongest argument against overruling Buckeye Community is that, far from eliminating an unworkable precedent (the second prong of the Galatis standard), doing so would create a system rife with complications. 2014Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 437 , 2007-Ohio-5379 , 875 N.E.2d 902 , ¶ 35. {¶ 41} But the strongest argument against overruling Buckeye Community is that, far from eliminating an unworkable precedent (the second prong of the Galatis standard), doing so would create a system rife with complications. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Groch v. General Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence2010Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St.3d 192 , 2008-Ohio-546 , 883 N.E.2d 377 , ¶134 (noting Galatis test as applicable test for overruling prior precedent); Allied Holdings, Inc. v. Meade, 3d Dist. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Dice, Unpublished Decision (5-23-2005)
green
2 sentences2009Furthermore, the only case following our holding in Gillenwater that flight alone does not constitute obstructing official business, State v. Smith (Mar. 31, 2000), Allen App. No. 1-99-65, 2000 WL 381612 , has been overruled by the Third District in State v. Dice, Marion App. No. 9-04-41, 2005-Ohio-2505 , 2005 WL 1205336 , at ¶ 21 and fn. 1, as “improvidently decided.” *466 {¶ 17} Accordingly, we conclude that Gillenwater was improperly decided and that the first element of the Galatis test has been satisfied. {¶ 18} The next element of the Galatis test is that the prior decision “defies pract 2009Furthermore, the only case following our holding in Gillenwater that flight alone does not constitute obstructing official business, State v. Smith (Mar. 31, 2000), Allen App. No. 1-99-65, 2000 WL 381612 , has been overruled by the Third District in State v. Dice, Marion App. No. 9-04-41, 2005-Ohio-2505 , 2005 WL 1205336 , at ¶ 21 and fn. 1, as “improvidently decided.” *466 {¶ 17} Accordingly, we conclude that Gillenwater was improperly decided and that the first element of the Galatis test has been satisfied. {¶ 18} The next element of the Galatis test is that the prior decision “defies pract | 1 | 2009–2009 |