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 1969–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Krill v. Krillgreen1 sentence2026Krill v. Krill, 2014-Ohio-2577, ¶ 29 (3d Dist.). {¶43} Although R.C. 3109.04 identifies various factors for a trial court to consider when exercising its discretion and making a best-interest determination, the statute contains no requirement that a court must enunciate its best interest analysis, findings, or determination. | 1 | 1 |
In re J.K.green1 sentence2026In re J.K., 2014-Ohio-5502, ¶ 31 (7th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Bennettgreen1 sentence2013No. 13AP-87 13 MA 40, 2012-Ohio-2700, ¶ 19 ("First and foremost, a note secured by a mortgage is widely considered to be a negotiable instrument."). {¶ 30} We conclude that the promissory note before us meets the statutory definition and, therefore, is a negotiable instrument subject to relevant provisions of R.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hughesgreen2 sentences2008Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 76 , 2008-Ohio-333 , 881 N.E.2d 1214 , ¶ 39 (“But the statute contains no exception, and we cannot add one to its express language”); see also State v. Hughes (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 424, 427 , 715 N.E.2d 540 (“In construing a statute, we may not add or delete words”). 2008Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 76 , 2008-Ohio-333 , 881 N.E.2d 1214 , ¶ 39 (“But the statute contains no exception, and we cannot add one to its express language”); see also State v. Hughes (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 424, 427 , 715 N.E.2d 540 (“In construing a statute, we may not add or delete words”). | 1 | 1 |
Rickards v. Stategreen2 sentences1969See Rickards v. State (1950), 45 Del. 573 , 77 A. 2d 199 . 1969See Rickards v. State (1950), 45 Del. 573 , 77 A. 2d 199 . | 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 ex rel. Stoll v. Logan County Board of Elections
green
2 sentences2017Bd. of Elections , 117 Ohio St.3d 76 , 2008-Ohio-333 , 881 N.E.2d 1214 , ¶ 39 ("But the statute contains no exception, and we cannot add one to its express language."). 2011Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 76 , 2008-Ohio-333 , 881 N.E.2d 1214 , ¶ 39 (“the statute contains no exception, and we cannot add one to its express language”); cf. State ex rel. | 4 | 2008–2017 |
Garcia v. Siffrin Residential Ass'n
green
2 sentences2002Moreover, the Garcia court set forth a similar requirement that general laws are “laws operating uniformly throughout the state.” Id., 63 Ohio St.2d at 271 , 17 O.O.3d 167 , 407 N.E .2d 1369. {¶ 26} Although the state maintains that the goal of the statute is to foster more affordable housing across the state, the statute contains an exception that wholly defeats the stated purpose. 2002Moreover, the Garcia court set forth a similar requirement that general laws are “laws operating uniformly throughout the state.” Id., 63 Ohio St.2d at 271 , 17 O.O.3d 167 , 407 N.E .2d 1369. {¶ 26} Although the state maintains that the goal of the statute is to foster more affordable housing across the state, the statute contains an exception that wholly defeats the stated purpose. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Schneiderman v. Sesanstein
green
2 sentences2002Moreover, the Garcia court set forth a similar requirement that general laws are “laws operating uniformly throughout the state.” Id., 63 Ohio St.2d at 271 , 17 O.O.3d 167 , 407 N.E.2d 1369 . {¶26} Although the state maintains that the goal of the statute is to foster more affordable housing across the state, the statute contains an exception that wholly defeats the stated purpose. 2002Moreover, the Garcia court set forth a similar requirement that general laws are “laws operating uniformly throughout the state.” Id., 63 Ohio St.2d at 271 , 17 O.O.3d 167 , 407 N.E .2d 1369. {¶ 26} Although the state maintains that the goal of the statute is to foster more affordable housing across the state, the statute contains an exception that wholly defeats the stated purpose. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State ex rel. Steele v. Foley (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2023But R.C. 2969.25(A) requires “strict compliance,” Steele, 164 Ohio St.3d 540 , 2021-Ohio-2073 , 173 N.E.3d 1209, at ¶ 7 , and the statute contains no exception for cases that an inmate has voluntarily dismissed. 2023But R.C. 2969.25(A) requires “strict compliance,” Steele, 164 Ohio St.3d 540 , 2021-Ohio-2073 , 173 N.E.3d 1209, at ¶ 7 , and the statute contains no exception for cases that an inmate has voluntarily dismissed. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Cox v. Ohio Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2008In Cox v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 501 , the high court stated: "Where the provisions of a revising statute are to take effect at a future period, and the statute contains a clause repealing the former statute upon the same subject, the repealing clause does not take effect until the other provisions of the repealing act come into operation. *Page 7 "Modern commentators have endorsed the proposition that a repealer and the amendatory enactment take effect simultaneously unless the legislature expresses a contrary intention. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Missouri v. Seibert
green
1 sentence2006He argues that Missouri v. Seibert (2004), 542 U.S. 600 , applies retroactively, and that his rights were violated based on the Seibert decision. {¶ 12} "When a decision of the United States Supreme Court results in a `new rule,' that rule applies to all criminal cases still pending on direct review. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Powell
green
2 sentences1995The statute contains no requirement that “the firearm be used in the commission of the felony, or that the defendant acquire the firearm before beginning the crime; all that is necessary is that the defendant have the firearm * * * under his control at some point during the commission of the crime.” State v. Powell (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 62, 63 , 571 N.E.2d 125, 127 . 1995The statute contains no requirement that “the firearm be used in the commission of the felony, or that the defendant acquire the firearm before beginning the crime; all that is necessary is that the defendant have the firearm * * * under his control at some point during the commission of the crime.” State v. Powell (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 62, 63 , 571 N.E.2d 125, 127 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.