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.
11 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Councilgreen2 sentences1996In Agins v. Tiburon (1980), 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 , the Supreme Court stated that “[t]he application of a general zoning law to particular property effects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.” (Citations omitted and emphasis added.) In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 , 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2893-2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 812-813 , the Supreme Court, citing Agins , reaffirmed the disjunctive nature of the applicable test. 1996In Agins v. Tiburon (1980), 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 , the Supreme Court stated that “[t]he application of a general zoning law to particular property effects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.” (Citations omitted and emphasis added.) In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 , 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2893-2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 812-813 , the Supreme Court, citing Agins , reaffirmed the disjunctive nature of the applicable test. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Dean (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2025Accord State v. Dean, 2015-Ohio-4347, ¶ 204 ; State v. Barron, 2024-Ohio-5836, ¶ 43 (2d Dist.). {¶ 64} We apply a de novo standard of review when evaluating R.C. 2941.25 merger decisions. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barrongreen1 sentence2025Accord State v. Dean, 2015-Ohio-4347, ¶ 204 ; State v. Barron, 2024-Ohio-5836, ¶ 43 (2d Dist.). {¶ 64} We apply a de novo standard of review when evaluating R.C. 2941.25 merger decisions. | 1 | 1 |
Nectow v. City of Cambridgegreen2 sentences1995A zoning ordinance effects a taking of property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if it “‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’” (Emphasis omitted in part.) Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. ___ , ___, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 813 (quoting Agins v. Tiburon [1980], 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 ). {¶ 36} With regard to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has 1995A zoning ordinance effects a taking of property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if it “‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’” (Emphasis omitted in part.) Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. ___ , ___, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 813 (quoting Agins v. Tiburon [1980], 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 ). {¶ 36} With regard to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Agins v. City of Tiburon
red
2 sentences1994The United States Supreme Court in Agins v. Tiburon (1980), 447 U.S. 255 , 100 S.Ct. 2138 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106 , unanimously concluded that a disjunctive test should be used when scrutinizing a zoning ordinance. 1994The United States Supreme Court in Agins v. Tiburon (1980), 447 U.S. 255 , 100 S.Ct. 2138 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106 , unanimously concluded that a disjunctive test should be used when scrutinizing a zoning ordinance. | 5 | 1994–1996 |
Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold
green
2 sentences2011On this issue, the Ohio Supreme Court has set forth a disjunctive test: {¶ 33} “Under R.C. 2305.11(A), an action for legal malpractice accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when there is a cognizable event whereby the client discovers or should have discovered that his injury was related to his attorney’s act or non-act and the client is put on notice of a need to pursue his possible remedies against the attorney or when the attorney-client relationship for that particular transaction or undertaking terminates, whichever occurs later.” (Emphasis added.) Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter 2011On this issue, the Ohio Supreme Court has set forth a disjunctive test: {¶ 33} “Under R.C. 2305.11(A), an action for legal malpractice accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when there is a cognizable event whereby the client discovers or should have discovered that his injury was related to his attorney’s act or non-act and the client is put on notice of a need to pursue his possible remedies against the attorney or when the attorney-client relationship for that particular transaction or undertaking terminates, whichever occurs later.” (Emphasis added.) Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter | 2 | 2011–2023 |
State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts.
green
2 sentences2006Shemo v. City of Mayfield Heights, 95 Ohio St.3d 59 , 63 , 2002-Ohio-1627 . 2003Id. {¶ 11} Appellants presented the deposition testimony of Larry Sprague and affidavit of Craig Rambo. | 2 | 2003–2006 |
Omni-Food & Fashion, Inc. v. Smith
green
2 sentences2011On this issue, the Ohio Supreme Court has set forth a disjunctive test: {¶ 33} “Under R.C. 2305.11(A), an action for legal malpractice accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when there is a cognizable event whereby the client discovers or should have discovered that his injury was related to his attorney’s act or non-act and the client is put on notice of a need to pursue his possible remedies against the attorney or when the attorney-client relationship for that particular transaction or undertaking terminates, whichever occurs later.” (Emphasis added.) Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter 2011On this issue, the Ohio Supreme Court has set forth a disjunctive test: {¶ 33} “Under R.C. 2305.11(A), an action for legal malpractice accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when there is a cognizable event whereby the client discovers or should have discovered that his injury was related to his attorney’s act or non-act and the client is put on notice of a need to pursue his possible remedies against the attorney or when the attorney-client relationship for that particular transaction or undertaking terminates, whichever occurs later.” (Emphasis added.) Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Golston
green
1 sentence2007Id. at syllabus. {¶ 10} S.J.K. does not allege a loss of his civil rights. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State ex rel. Shemo v. City of Mayfield Heights
green
1 sentence2006Shemo v. City of Mayfield Heights, 95 Ohio St.3d 59 , 63 , 2002-Ohio-1627 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
green
2 sentences1995A zoning ordinance effects a taking of property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if it “‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’” (Emphasis omitted in part.) Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. ___ , ___, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 813 (quoting Agins v. Tiburon [1980], 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 ). {¶ 36} With regard to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has 1995A zoning ordinance effects a taking of property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if it “‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’” (Emphasis omitted in part.) Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. ___ , ___, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2894 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 813 (quoting Agins v. Tiburon [1980], 447 U.S. 255, 260 , 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 ). {¶ 36} With regard to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has | 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.