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 2010–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re I.A.G.green1 sentence2026V at ¶ 13, citing In re I.A.G., 2016-Ohio-3326, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.); Robbins v. Ginese, 93 Ohio App.3d 370 (8th Dist. 1994); Beatley v. Beatley, 2003-Ohio-4375 (5th Dist.); Longo v. Longo, 2014-Ohio-4880, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Longo v. Longogreen1 sentence2026V at ¶ 13, citing In re I.A.G., 2016-Ohio-3326, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.); Robbins v. Ginese, 93 Ohio App.3d 370 (8th Dist. 1994); Beatley v. Beatley, 2003-Ohio-4375 (5th Dist.); Longo v. Longo, 2014-Ohio-4880, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Boddie v. Connecticutgreen1 sentence2025Bd., 61 Ohio App.3d 677, 684 (1988), citing Luff v. State, 117 Ohio St. 102 (1927); see also, Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378-379 (1971). {¶ 29} Dr. Lake was given notice of the Ohio Board’s potential action against her, and that notice, in express terms, informed her that she had the opportunity to request a hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Korn v. Ohio State Medical Boardgreen1 sentence2025Bd., 61 Ohio App.3d 677, 684 (1988), citing Luff v. State, 117 Ohio St. 102 (1927); see also, Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378-379 (1971). {¶ 29} Dr. Lake was given notice of the Ohio Board’s potential action against her, and that notice, in express terms, informed her that she had the opportunity to request a hearing. | 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. Joseph
green
2 sentences2019State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 , 2010-Ohio-954, ¶ 13 . 2019State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 , 2010-Ohio-954, ¶ 13 . | 5 | 2012–2019 |
Robbins v. Ginese
green
1 sentence2026V at ¶ 13, citing In re I.A.G., 2016-Ohio-3326, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.); Robbins v. Ginese, 93 Ohio App.3d 370 (8th Dist. 1994); Beatley v. Beatley, 2003-Ohio-4375 (5th Dist.); Longo v. Longo, 2014-Ohio-4880, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Luff v. State
green
1 sentence2025Bd., 61 Ohio App.3d 677, 684 (1988), citing Luff v. State, 117 Ohio St. 102 (1927); see also, Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378-379 (1971). {¶ 29} Dr. Lake was given notice of the Ohio Board’s potential action against her, and that notice, in express terms, informed her that she had the opportunity to request a hearing. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. McCall
green
1 sentence2024No. 18AP-93, 2021-Ohio-1032, ¶ 18 , No. 21AP-350 16 quoting State v. Wallace, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Snodgrass-King Pediatric Dental Associates, P.C. v. DentaQuest USA Insurance
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 768-69 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Lunsford
green
1 sentence2013State v. Lunsford, 193 Ohio App.3d 195 , 2011-Ohio-964 , ¶15. {¶33} In addition, R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a) mandates that, as part of the 7 sentencing hearing, a trial court must notify the defendant of the potential imposition of community service for failing to satisfy the “court costs” order. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
University Hospital v. State Employment Relations Board
green
2 sentences2010Relations Bd. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 339 , 587 N.E.2d 835 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 9} Appellant first argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law by requiring a showing of prejudice from her lack of notice of the garnishment orders, pursuant to R.C. 2716.13(C), which mandates the notice in order for the debtor to have an opportunity to request a hearing. 2010Relations Bd. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 339 , 587 N.E.2d 835 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 9} Appellant first argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law by requiring a showing of prejudice from her lack of notice of the garnishment orders, pursuant to R.C. 2716.13(C), which mandates the notice in order for the debtor to have an opportunity to request a hearing. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.