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 1 courts 1987–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baker v. Conlangreen2 sentences2020When considering whether a plaintiff has complied with the Civ.R. 9(B) particularity requirement, “[t]he underlying determination in each case is whether the allegation is specific enough to inform the defendant of the act of which the plaintiff complains, and to enable the defendant to prepare an effective response and defense.” Meehan, 2019-Ohio-4075 , 146 N.E.3d 1266 , at ¶ 22, quoting Baker v. Conlan, 66 Ohio App.3d 454, 458 , 585 N.E.2d 543 (1st Dist.1990). 2020When considering whether a plaintiff has complied with the Civ.R. 9(B) particularity requirement, “[t]he underlying determination in each case is whether the allegation is specific enough to inform the defendant of the act of which the plaintiff complains, and to enable the defendant to prepare an effective response and defense.” Meehan, 2019-Ohio-4075 , 146 N.E.3d 1266 , at ¶ 22, quoting Baker v. Conlan, 66 Ohio App.3d 454, 458 , 585 N.E.2d 543 (1st Dist.1990). | 1 | 7 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Meehan v. Mardis
green
2 sentences2020When considering whether a plaintiff has complied with the Civ.R. 9(B) particularity requirement, “[t]he underlying determination in each case is whether the allegation is specific enough to inform the defendant of the act of which the plaintiff complains, and to enable the defendant to prepare an effective response and defense.” Meehan, 2019-Ohio-4075 , 146 N.E.3d 1266 , at ¶ 22, quoting Baker v. Conlan, 66 Ohio App.3d 454, 458 , 585 N.E.2d 543 (1st Dist.1990). 2020Hamilton No. C-180406, 2019-Ohio-4075, ¶22 , quoting Baker v. Conlan, 66 Ohio 14 App.3d 454, 458 (1st Dist.1990), citing Haddon View Invest. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Haddon View Investment Co. v. Coopers
green
2 sentences2000Id ., citing Haddon View Investment Co. v. Coopers Lybrand (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 154 , 158-159 . 1990Id., citing Haddon View Investment Co. v. Coopers & Lybrand (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 154 , 436 N.E.2d 212 . | 2 | 1990–2000 |
Aluminum Line Products Co. v. Brad Smith Roofing Co.
green
2 sentences1998For example, Civ.R. 9(B) requires that when averments of fraud are made, “the circumstances constituting fraud * * * shall be stated with particularity.” As stated in Aluminum Line Products Co. v. Brad Smith Roofing Co., Inc. (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 246, 259 , 671 N.E.2d 1343 , 1351: “The ‘circumstances constituting fraud’ include the time, place and content of the false representation; the fact represented; the identification of the individual giving the false representation; and the nature of what was obtained or given as a consequence of the fraud.” The purpose of this requirement is to giv 1998For example, Civ.R. 9(B) requires that when averments of fraud are made, “the circumstances constituting fraud * * * shall be stated with particularity.” As stated in Aluminum Line Products Co. v. Brad Smith Roofing Co., Inc. (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 246, 259 , 671 N.E.2d 1343 , 1351: “The ‘circumstances constituting fraud’ include the time, place and content of the false representation; the fact represented; the identification of the individual giving the false representation; and the nature of what was obtained or given as a consequence of the fraud.” The purpose of this requirement is to giv | 1 | 1998–1998 |
F & J Roofing Co. v. McGinley & Sons, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990Id., citing Haddon View Investment Co. v. Coopers & Lybrand (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 154 , 436 N.E.2d 212 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In Re Commonwealth Oil/Tesoro Petroleum Corp. Securities Litigation
green
1 sentence1987Tex. 1979), 467 F. Supp. 227, 250 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |