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.
12 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hershhorn v. Viereckgreen2 sentences2016Hershhorn v. Viereck, 27 Ohio App.3d 242, 243 , 500 N.E.2d 379, 381 (10th Dist.1985) {¶27} “And, even where the sole, ultimate issue is entitlement to a permanent injunction, it is improper to enter judgment on the merits, immediately following a consolidated hearing, if the time has not yet expired for the defendant to answer. 2016Hershhorn v. Viereck, 27 Ohio App.3d 242, 243 , 500 N.E.2d 379, 381 (10th Dist.1985) {¶27} “And, even where the sole, ultimate issue is entitlement to a permanent injunction, it is improper to enter judgment on the merits, immediately following a consolidated hearing, if the time has not yet expired for the defendant to answer. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Carnesgreen1 sentence2024State v. Carabello, 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67 (1985). “[I]t is well-established that claims raised in a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea that were raised or could have been raised in a direct appeal may be barred by res judicata.” State v. Carnes, 2020-Ohio-3566, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Caraballogreen1 sentence2024State v. Carabello, 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67 (1985). “[I]t is well-established that claims raised in a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea that were raised or could have been raised in a direct appeal may be barred by res judicata.” State v. Carnes, 2020-Ohio-3566, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompkinsred1 sentence2017Appellant also raises a sufficiency argument in his second assignment of error with regard to the denial of his Crim.R. 29 motions: {¶45} “The trial court erred in overruling Appellants’ Crim.R. 29 motions for acquittal; as originally made and renewed.” [sic] {¶46} To determine whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must consider the weight of the evidence, including the credibility of the witnesses and all reasonable inferences, to determine whether the trier of fact “‘clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martingreen1 sentence2017Appellant also raises a sufficiency argument in his second assignment of error with regard to the denial of his Crim.R. 29 motions: {¶45} “The trial court erred in overruling Appellants’ Crim.R. 29 motions for acquittal; as originally made and renewed.” [sic] {¶46} To determine whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must consider the weight of the evidence, including the credibility of the witnesses and all reasonable inferences, to determine whether the trier of fact “‘clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the | 1 | 1 |
Ohio State Board of Pharmacy v. Dick's Pharmacygreen2 sentences2003See Ohio State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Dick’s Pharmacy, 150 Ohio App.3d 343 , 2002-Ohio-6500 , 780 N.E.2d 1075 . {¶ 5} A consolidated hearing was held before the full board on March 6, 2001. 2003See Ohio State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Dick’s Pharmacy, 150 Ohio App.3d 343 , 2002-Ohio-6500 , 780 N.E.2d 1075 . {¶ 5} A consolidated hearing was held before the full board on March 6, 2001. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Essroc Materials, Inc. v. Poland Township Board of Zoning Appeals
green
2 sentences2018Again, pursuant to R.C. 519.14, a board of zoning appeals has "the discretion to approve or deny conditional use permits, based on its evaluation of the unique circumstances of the petition[.]" Essroc , supra , at 461, 690 N.E.2d 964 . {¶ 22} The trial court did not err in failing to rule that the LTZR is unconstitutional as it was applied to Mr. Ferrara. {¶ 23} Mr. Ferrara's first assignment of error is without merit. {¶ 24} We consider the remaining three assignments of error in a consolidated analysis. 2018Again, pursuant to R.C. 519.14, a board of zoning appeals has "the discretion to approve or deny conditional use permits, based on its evaluation of the unique circumstances of the petition[.]" Essroc , supra , at 461, 690 N.E.2d 964 . {¶ 22} The trial court did not err in failing to rule that the LTZR is unconstitutional as it was applied to Mr. Ferrara. {¶ 23} Mr. Ferrara's first assignment of error is without merit. {¶ 24} We consider the remaining three assignments of error in a consolidated analysis. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
First Natl. Bank of Pandora v. Freed, Unpublished Decision (7-6-2004)
green
1 sentence2016Hancock No. 5-03-36, 2004-Ohio-3554, ¶9 . {¶13} As Praetorium’s first, second, and third assignments of error relate to appellees’ first alleged meritorious defense, i.e., a dispute in the amount of the underlying judgment, we address them in a consolidated analysis. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Hammonds, 06ap-1122 (8-30-2007)
neutral
2 sentences2012No. 06AP-1122, 2007-Ohio-4456, ¶ 15 . {¶21} Here, appellant did not object to a consolidated hearing, and has waived all but plain error. 2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lakewood v. Grundstein, Unpublished Decision (6-9-2005)
neutral
1 sentence2012No. 84763, 2005-Ohio-2826, ¶ 14 . {¶20} Appellant gave no indication that he objected to the consolidated hearing held below before or while it was taking place. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Felton v. Felton
green
2 sentences2010Thus, we will address these assigned errors in a consolidated analysis. {¶ 38} “When granting a protection order, the trial court must find that petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that petitioner or petitioner’s family or household members are in danger of domestic violence.” Felton v. Felton (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 34 , 679 N.E.2d 672 , paragraph two of the syllabus, citing R.C. 3113.31(D). {¶ 39} The decision to issue a civil protection order lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. 2010Thus, we will address these assigned errors in a consolidated analysis. {¶ 38} “When granting a protection order, the trial court must find that petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that petitioner or petitioner’s family or household members are in danger of domestic violence.” Felton v. Felton (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 34 , 679 N.E.2d 672 , paragraph two of the syllabus, citing R.C. 3113.31(D). {¶ 39} The decision to issue a civil protection order lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Health Center
green
1 sentence2008In Ohio, "the existence of a duty depends on the forseeability of the injury." See Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hospital Health Ctr. (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 86 , 92 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Jenks
red
1 sentence2007Wherefore, the court stated that I, in part, `. . . not charged with maintaining a public nuisance. . .'" {¶ 16} Due to the similar nature of these assigned errors, they will be addressed in a consolidated analysis. {¶ 17} When determining whether there is sufficient evidence presented to sustain a conviction, "[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
1 sentence2007Wherefore, the court stated that I, in part, `. . . not charged with maintaining a public nuisance. . .'" {¶ 16} Due to the similar nature of these assigned errors, they will be addressed in a consolidated analysis. {¶ 17} When determining whether there is sufficient evidence presented to sustain a conviction, "[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trustees
neutral
1 sentence2005Bd. of Trustees, 81 Ohio St.3d 608 , 613 , 1998-Ohio-340 . {¶ 7} Although the BZA initially had several issues with appellant's alterations to the property, all of them were resolved prior to the consolidated hearing on appellant's conditional use application and the township's application for an injunction, except for the existence of additional parking places. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Smith v. Granville Township Board of Trustees
green
1 sentence2005Bd. of Trustees, 81 Ohio St.3d 608 , 613 , 1998-Ohio-340 . {¶ 7} Although the BZA initially had several issues with appellant's alterations to the property, all of them were resolved prior to the consolidated hearing on appellant's conditional use application and the township's application for an injunction, except for the existence of additional parking places. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.