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 1 courts 1948–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hyams v. Cleveland Clinic Found.green1 sentence2017See Hyams v. Cleveland Clinic Found. , 2012-Ohio-3945 , 976 N.E.2d 297 , ¶ 11-27 ; Boardman Twp. | 1 | 1 |
Timekeeping Sys., Inc. v. Safety Protection Universal Ltd.green1 sentence2014Cuyahoga No. 99714, 2013-Ohio-3919, ¶ 12 (concluding that defendant had right to assert the defense of personal jurisdiction in her motion to vacate the default judgment). | 1 | 1 |
Heldman v. Uniroyal, Inc.green2 sentences2007See, by way of analogy, Heldman v. Uniroyal, Inc. (1977), 53 Ohio App.2d 21 , 371 N.E.2d 557 (a party waives error if he fails to object to the admissibility of evidence). {¶ 40} Even though there is some general legal support for an arbitrator's consideration of the post-termination evidence, if a CBA prohibits the consideration of such evidence then the arbitrator exceeds her authority by relying on the mitigation evidence. 2007See, by way of analogy, Heldman v. Uniroyal, Inc. (1977), 53 Ohio App.2d 21 , 371 N.E.2d 557 (a party waives error if he fails to object to the admissibility of evidence). {¶ 40} Even though there is some general legal support for an arbitrator's consideration of the post-termination evidence, if a CBA prohibits the consideration of such evidence then the arbitrator exceeds her authority by relying on the mitigation evidence. | 1 | 1 |
McPherson v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co.green1 sentence2004See id. {¶ 10} In the case at bar, Appellees requested "[a]ll documents that reflect, refer or relate in any way to [Appellant's] service as an agent for [Appellees]." Appellees' definitional section for the requests defined "document" as "any material recorded in verbal, graphic, computer, telecommunicative, or magnetic form or any other form capable of being read, heard, or otherwise understood[,]" a definition which obviously includes audio tapes. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bidinostgreen1 sentence1997See State v. Bidinost (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 449 , 644 N.E.2d 318 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2008State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 91 , 372 N.E. 2d 804 ; State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 13 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 ; State v. Jackson (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 436 , 444 , 751 N.E. 2d 946 , (Absent plain error, a party waives error concerning jury instructions if the party fails to object before the jury retires). *Page 7 {¶ 19} Because counsel failed to object to the trial court's refusal to give the accident instruction prior to jury deliberations we must review this assignment pursuant to a plain error analysis. 2008State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 91 , 372 N.E. 2d 804 ; State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 13 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 ; State v. Jackson (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 436 , 444 , 751 N.E. 2d 946 , (Absent plain error, a party waives error concerning jury instructions if the party fails to object before the jury retires). *Page 7 {¶ 19} Because counsel failed to object to the trial court's refusal to give the accident instruction prior to jury deliberations we must review this assignment pursuant to a plain error analysis. | 3 | 2007–2008 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2006Appellee notes that appellant’s trial counsel instead argued to the juvenile court that appellant’s Fifth Amendment rights “articulated under” Blakely precluded the juvenile court from making R.C. 2152.13(D)(2)(a) findings. {¶ 58} A party waives error on appeal when the party “could have called, but did not call, to the trial court’s attention” error that “could have been avoided or corrected by the trial court.” State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112 , 5 O.O.3d 98 , 364 N.E.2d 1364 , paragraph one of the syllabus, modified on other grounds, State v. Gillard (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 226 , 53 2006Appellee notes that appellant’s trial counsel instead argued to the juvenile court that appellant’s Fifth Amendment rights “articulated under” Blakely precluded the juvenile court from making R.C. 2152.13(D)(2)(a) findings. {¶ 58} A party waives error on appeal when the party “could have called, but did not call, to the trial court’s attention” error that “could have been avoided or corrected by the trial court.” State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112 , 5 O.O.3d 98 , 364 N.E.2d 1364 , paragraph one of the syllabus, modified on other grounds, State v. Gillard (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 226 , 53 | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Gillard
green
2 sentences2006Appellee notes that appellant’s trial counsel instead argued to the juvenile court that appellant’s Fifth Amendment rights “articulated under” Blakely precluded the juvenile court from making R.C. 2152.13(D)(2)(a) findings. {¶ 58} A party waives error on appeal when the party “could have called, but did not call, to the trial court’s attention” error that “could have been avoided or corrected by the trial court.” State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112 , 5 O.O.3d 98 , 364 N.E.2d 1364 , paragraph one of the syllabus, modified on other grounds, State v. Gillard (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 226 , 53 2006Appellee notes that appellant’s trial counsel instead argued to the juvenile court that appellant’s Fifth Amendment rights “articulated under” Blakely precluded the juvenile court from making R.C. 2152.13(D)(2)(a) findings. {¶ 58} A party waives error on appeal when the party “could have called, but did not call, to the trial court’s attention” error that “could have been avoided or corrected by the trial court.” State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112 , 5 O.O.3d 98 , 364 N.E.2d 1364 , paragraph one of the syllabus, modified on other grounds, State v. Gillard (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 226 , 53 | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Aldridge
green
2 sentences2005Under Evid.R. 103(A), error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits evidence unless "a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record stating the specific ground of objection [.]" "An enduring principle of appellate review is that a party waives an error that it fails to preserve through an objection at trial." State v. Aldridge (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 122 , 154 , 697 N.E.2d 228 . 2005Under Evid.R. 103(A), error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits evidence unless "a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record stating the specific ground of objection [.]" "An enduring principle of appellate review is that a party waives an error that it fails to preserve through an objection at trial." State v. Aldridge (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 122 , 154 , 697 N.E.2d 228 . | 2 | 2004–2005 |
State v. Underwood
green
2 sentences2008State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 91 , 372 N.E. 2d 804 ; State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 13 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 ; State v. Jackson (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 436 , 444 , 751 N.E. 2d 946 , (Absent plain error, a party waives error concerning jury instructions if the party fails to object before the jury retires). *Page 7 {¶ 19} Because counsel failed to object to the trial court's refusal to give the accident instruction prior to jury deliberations we must review this assignment pursuant to a plain error analysis. 2008State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 91 , 372 N.E. 2d 804 ; State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 13 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 ; State v. Jackson (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 436 , 444 , 751 N.E. 2d 946 , (Absent plain error, a party waives error concerning jury instructions if the party fails to object before the jury retires). *Page 7 {¶ 19} Because counsel failed to object to the trial court's refusal to give the accident instruction prior to jury deliberations we must review this assignment pursuant to a plain error analysis. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Long
green
2 sentences2008State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 91 , 372 N.E. 2d 804 ; State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 13 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 ; State v. Jackson (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 436 , 444 , 751 N.E. 2d 946 , (Absent plain error, a party waives error concerning jury instructions if the party fails to object before the jury retires). *Page 7 {¶ 19} Because counsel failed to object to the trial court's refusal to give the accident instruction prior to jury deliberations we must review this assignment pursuant to a plain error analysis. 2008State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 91 , 372 N.E. 2d 804 ; State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 13 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 ; State v. Jackson (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 436 , 444 , 751 N.E. 2d 946 , (Absent plain error, a party waives error concerning jury instructions if the party fails to object before the jury retires). *Page 7 {¶ 19} Because counsel failed to object to the trial court's refusal to give the accident instruction prior to jury deliberations we must review this assignment pursuant to a plain error analysis. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Berry and Berry v. Barton
neutral
1 sentence1948As the court stated in Berry v Barton, 12 Okla, 221, 71 Pac. 1074 , 66 L. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
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.