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 1986–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Copley v. Copleygreen1 sentence2025See Copley v. Copley, 2020-Ohio-6669, ¶ 28 (4th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Melvin, 88611 (7-26-2007)green1 sentence2011No. 88611, 2007-Ohio-3779, ¶26 . “[W]hen a law enforcement officer is otherwise authorized to arrest a person for the commission of a minor misdemeanor, the officer shall not arrest the person, but shall issue a citation,” unless a specifically enumerated exception applies. | 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. Jones
neutral
2 sentences2021Further, "aside from the specifically enumerated factors, the juvenile court is instructed to consider 'any other relevant factors.' " Id., citing R.C. 2152.12(D) and (E). {¶ 50} R.C. 2152.12(D), which sets forth the relevant factors in favor of transfer, states as follows: In considering whether to transfer a child under division (B) of this section, the juvenile court shall consider the following No. 20AP-120 15 relevant factors, and any other relevant factors, in favor of a transfer under that division: (1) The victim of the act charged suffered physical or psychological harm, or serious ec 2020Additionally, aside from the specifically enumerated factors, the juvenile court is instructed to consider “any other relevant factors.” Id., citing R.C. 2152.12(D) and (E). | 5 | 2015–2021 |
Albrecht v. Albrecht
green
1 sentence2020Trumbull No. 2013-T- 0124, 2014-Ohio-5464, ¶ 16 , quoting Romano v. Jennison, 11th Dist. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2018“Additionally, aside from the specifically enumerated factors, the juvenile court is instructed to consider ‘any other relevant factors.’ ” (Citation omitted.) Johnson, 2015-Ohio-96 , 27 N.E.3d 9 at ¶ 35, quoting R.C. 2152.12(D) and (E). {¶ 20} Pursuant to R.C. 2152.12(D), the following factors weigh in favor of transferring the case to the general division of common pleas court: (1) The victim of the act charged suffered physical or psychological harm, or serious economic harm, as a result of the alleged act. -9- (2) The physical or psychological harm suffered by the victim due to the alleged 2018“Further, when the trial court determines a transfer is proper, the juvenile court ‘shall state the reasons for the transfer on the record.’ ” Johnson, 2015-Ohio-96 , 27 N.E.3d 9 at ¶ 35, citing R.C. 2152.12(I) and Juv.R. 30(G). {¶ 23} In D.H., 2d Dist. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kelm v. Kelm
green
2 sentences2011Kelm v. Kelm (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 223, 226 , 749 N.E.2d 299 . 2011Kelm v. Kelm (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 223, 226 , 749 N.E.2d 299 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In re William S.
green
1 sentence1998In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , syllabus. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Saunders v. Choi
green
2 sentences1986Accordingly, there is no basis upon which we should conclude that R.C. 2305.19 does not apply to medical malpractice claims, especially in view of the General Assembly’s having failed to include R.C. 2305.19 as a specifically enumerated exception along with R.C. 2305.16, as it easily could have. *62 Our conclusion is reinforced by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Saunders v. Choi (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 247 , 12 OBR 327, 466 N.E. 2d 889 , where it was assumed that R.C. 2305.19 is applicable to medical malpractice claims. 1986Accordingly, there is no basis upon which we should conclude that R.C. 2305.19 does not apply to medical malpractice claims, especially in view of the General Assembly’s having failed to include R.C. 2305.19 as a specifically enumerated exception along with R.C. 2305.16, as it easily could have. *62 Our conclusion is reinforced by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Saunders v. Choi (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 247 , 12 OBR 327, 466 N.E. 2d 889 , where it was assumed that R.C. 2305.19 is applicable to medical malpractice claims. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.