11 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2016In State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860 , the Ohio Supreme Court recently explained under what circumstances an allied-offense argument is waived, as well as clarified the difference between the waiver and the forfeiture of an allied-offense argument. {¶9} The Rogers court explained that waiver is the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” (Internal citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 20. 2016In State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860 , the Ohio Supreme Court recently explained under what circumstances an allied-offense argument is waived, as well as clarified the difference between the waiver and the forfeiture of an allied-offense argument. {¶9} The Rogers court explained that waiver is the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” (Internal citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 20. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Thielgreen1 sentence2026See Crim.R. 52(B); State v. Thiel, 2017-Ohio-242, ¶ 162 (3d Dist.) (“[Appellant] did not object to the trial court’s answer to the jury’s . . . question at trial, and therefore, he has [forfeited] all but plain error.”); see State v. Payne, 2007-Ohio-4642 , ¶ 23 (explaining the difference between waiver and forfeiture). | 1 | 1 |
Ianetta v. Joyce Passov Commercial Property Mgt., L.L.C.green1 sentence2025See, e.g., McCarthy v. Abraham, 2023-Ohio-4845, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.) (noting that “the difference between the standard of care and a best practice is ‘the standard of care is the minimum’ and ‘best practices is something over the standard of care’”); Liggins v. Giant Eagle McCutcheon & Stelzer, 2019-Ohio-1250, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.) (“[T]he premise that voluntarily adopted, internal safety guidelines or policies should impose legal duties on companies that adopt them is contrary to public policy.” Defendants “should be encouraged to establish safety policies that represent ‘best practices’ or exceed t | 1 | 1 |
McCarthy v. Abrahamgreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., McCarthy v. Abraham, 2023-Ohio-4845, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.) (noting that “the difference between the standard of care and a best practice is ‘the standard of care is the minimum’ and ‘best practices is something over the standard of care’”); Liggins v. Giant Eagle McCutcheon & Stelzer, 2019-Ohio-1250, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.) (“[T]he premise that voluntarily adopted, internal safety guidelines or policies should impose legal duties on companies that adopt them is contrary to public policy.” Defendants “should be encouraged to establish safety policies that represent ‘best practices’ or exceed t | 1 | 1 |
Liggins v. Giant Eagle McCutcheon & Stelzergreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., McCarthy v. Abraham, 2023-Ohio-4845, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.) (noting that “the difference between the standard of care and a best practice is ‘the standard of care is the minimum’ and ‘best practices is something over the standard of care’”); Liggins v. Giant Eagle McCutcheon & Stelzer, 2019-Ohio-1250, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.) (“[T]he premise that voluntarily adopted, internal safety guidelines or policies should impose legal duties on companies that adopt them is contrary to public policy.” Defendants “should be encouraged to establish safety policies that represent ‘best practices’ or exceed t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martin (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2021State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 15 (explaining the difference between waiver and forfeitures); State v. Martin, 154 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2018-Ohio-3226 , 116 N.E.3d 127, ¶ 2 (because Martin had forfeited the error but could not show plain-error, the Court did not need to determine if the error was waived by her guilty plea). 2021State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 15 (explaining the difference between waiver and forfeitures); State v. Martin, 154 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2018-Ohio-3226 , 116 N.E.3d 127, ¶ 2 (because Martin had forfeited the error but could not show plain-error, the Court did not need to determine if the error was waived by her guilty plea). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Quarterman (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2021State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 15 (explaining the difference between waiver and forfeitures); State v. Martin, 154 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2018-Ohio-3226 , 116 N.E.3d 127, ¶ 2 (because Martin had forfeited the error but could not show plain-error, the Court did not need to determine if the error was waived by her guilty plea). 2021State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 15 (explaining the difference between waiver and forfeitures); State v. Martin, 154 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2018-Ohio-3226 , 116 N.E.3d 127, ¶ 2 (because Martin had forfeited the error but could not show plain-error, the Court did not need to determine if the error was waived by her guilty plea). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Paynegreen1 sentence2015See State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , ¶ 23 (explaining the difference between waiver and forfeiture). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2023They alleged in the complaint that Mr. Abraham failed to exercise reasonable care in advising them concerning the statute of repose, failed to include the claims of their children in the complaint, and improperly asserted wrongful death as a cause of action. {¶ 10} The McCarthys obtained an expert, Michael Djordjevic, who testified on deposition that for a legal malpractice claim, “[t]he standard of care is what a reasonably prudent practitioner of ordinary skill, care and diligence would do in the same or similar circumstances.” (Djordjevic Depo. at 13.) In his view, the difference between th 2023They alleged in the complaint that Mr. Abraham failed to exercise reasonable care in advising them concerning the statute of repose, failed to include the claims of their children in the complaint, and improperly asserted wrongful death as a cause of action. {¶ 10} The McCarthys obtained an expert, Michael Djordjevic, who testified on deposition that for a legal malpractice claim, “[t]he standard of care is what a reasonably prudent practitioner of ordinary skill, care and diligence would do in the same or similar circumstances.” (Djordjevic Depo. at 13.) In his view, the difference between th | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Powell v. Vanlandingham
green
1 sentence2021No. 10CA24, 2011-Ohio-3208, ¶ 23 , the court of appeals explained the difference between affirmative defenses and counterclaims: "The difference between a defense and a counterclaim is that 'the latter is affirmative in nature, and asserts a separate cause of action, while the former serves to preclude recovery by asserting facts that defeat the plaintiff's right to recovery.' Riley v. Montgomery (June 30, 1983), Warren App. No. 88, Nos. 20AP-323 and 20AP-327 16 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 15944 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Rohrbaugh
green
2 sentences2015Because even plain error is waived if error is invited, Martin at ¶ 2 , citing State v. Rohrbaugh, 126 Ohio St.3d 421 , 2010-Ohio-3286 , 934 N.E.2d 920, ¶ 10 , we overrule Thacker’s first assignment of error. 2015Because even plain error is waived if error is invited, Martin at ¶ 2 , citing State v. Rohrbaugh, 126 Ohio St.3d 421 , 2010-Ohio-3286 , 934 N.E.2d 920, ¶ 10 , we overrule Thacker’s first assignment of error. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Drzal v. Drzal, Unpublished Decision (9-27-2006)
neutral
1 sentence2007Although there is no set method for a court to employ to formulate a deviation, see Drzal v. Drzal , Columbiana App. No. 05 CO 31 , 2006-Ohio-5230 , at ¶ 14 , the method utilized by the trial court in the present case is a common one to determine the proper amount to deviate from the standard guidelines amount. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Kisil v. City of Sandusky
green
1 sentence2000In Kisil v. City of Sandusky (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 30 , 34 , fn. 4, the court, in describing the difference between the standard of review to be used by the common pleas court in R.C. 2506.04 appeals and the standard of review to be used by the court of appeals in R.C. 2506.04 appeals, explained that under R.C. 2506.04 , the common pleas court must review the whole record, including any new evidence submitted directly to the common pleas court, and decide whether the agency's decision is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable and proba | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.