13 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1999See generally, Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 ; State v. Smith (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 98 , 100 . 1999See generally, Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 ; State v. Smith (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 98 , 100 . | 2 | 2 |
Hall v. Fort Frye Local School District Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2018See generally Hall v. Fort Frye Local School District Board of Education , 111 Ohio App.3d 690 , 694-695, 676 N.E.2d 1241 (4th Dist.1996) (noting that a party raising an immunity defense must present evidence tending to prove the underlying facts upon which the defense is based). {¶ 38} Because Appellants failed to present evidence of a discretionary decision as contemplated by R.C. 2744.03(A)(3) or 2744.03(A)(5), neither subsection reinstates the Village's immunity. 2018See generally Hall v. Fort Frye Local School District Board of Education , 111 Ohio App.3d 690 , 694-695, 676 N.E.2d 1241 (4th Dist.1996) (noting that a party raising an immunity defense must present evidence tending to prove the underlying facts upon which the defense is based). {¶ 38} Because Appellants failed to present evidence of a discretionary decision as contemplated by R.C. 2744.03(A)(3) or 2744.03(A)(5), neither subsection reinstates the Village's immunity. | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. First United Methodist Churchgreen2 sentences2007See Doe v. First United Methodist Church (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 531 , 535 , 629 N.E.2d 402 . {¶ 16} A party raising an immunity defense to support a motion for summary judgment "must present evidence tending to prove the underlying facts upon which the defense is based." Evans v. S Ohio Med. 2007See Doe v. First United Methodist Church (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 531 , 535 , 629 N.E.2d 402 . {¶ 16} A party raising an immunity defense to support a motion for summary judgment "must present evidence tending to prove the underlying facts upon which the defense is based." Evans v. S Ohio Med. | 1 | 1 |
Schwartz v. Bank One, Portsmouth, N.A.green2 sentences2005See, also, Schwartz v. Bank One, Portsmouth, N.A. (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 806, 809 , 619 N.E.2d 10 . {¶ 9} A party raising an immunity defense to support a motion for summary judgment “must present evidence tending to prove the underlying facts upon which the defense is based. 2005See, also, Schwartz v. Bank One, Portsmouth, N.A. (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 806, 809 , 619 N.E.2d 10 . {¶ 9} A party raising an immunity defense to support a motion for summary judgment “must present evidence tending to prove the underlying facts upon which the defense is based. | 1 | 1 |
Foote Theatre, Inc. v. Dixie Roller Rink, Inc.green2 sentences1995See Foote Theatre, Inc. v. Dixie Roller Rink, Inc. (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 456, 458 , 14 OBR 576, 578, 471 N.E.2d 866, 868-869 . 1995See Foote Theatre, Inc. v. Dixie Roller Rink, Inc. (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 456, 458 , 14 OBR 576, 578, 471 N.E.2d 866, 868-869 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matchmaker International Inc. v. Long
green
2 sentences2008MatchMaker Internatl., Inc. v. Long (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 406 , 408 . *Page 5 {¶ 7} Here, in concluding that estoppel does not apply against a state or its agencies when in the exercise of a governmental function, and that Kristen's acts were an exercise of a governmental function, the trial court relied upon Griffith v. J.C. 2005MatchMaker Internatl., Inc. v. Long (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 406 , 408 * * *. | 3 | 2001–2008 |
Evans v. Southern Ohio Medical Center
green
2 sentences2007Ctr. (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 250 , 255 , 659 N.E.2d 326 ; see, also, Vance v. Jefferson Area Local School Dist. 2007Ctr. (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 250 , 255 , 659 N.E.2d 326 ; see, also, Vance v. Jefferson Area Local School Dist. | 2 | 2005–2007 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1999See generally, Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 ; State v. Smith (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 98 , 100 . 1999See generally, Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 ; State v. Smith (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 98 , 100 . | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Nationstar Mtge., L.L.C. v. Mielcarek
green
1 sentence2024Lorain No. 15CA10748, 2016-Ohio-60, ¶ 11 , quoting First Natl. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Tapia-Cortes
green
1 sentence2021Id. {¶29} Good claims that his trial counsel incorrectly informed him of the maximum penalties associated with Counts One and Eleven. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Connin v. Bailey
green
2 sentences2006Connin v. Bailey (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 34 , 472 N.E.2d 328 . 2006Connin v. Bailey (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 34 , 472 N.E.2d 328 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.