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 1991–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rutti v. Dobeckgreen1 sentence2025In Rutti v. Dobeck, 2017-Ohio-8737, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), we affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a complaint as untimely filed, in part, because the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas First Amended Temporary Administrative Order (“TAO”) authorized the clerk of courts to reject corrupted documents.2 Similarly, in Culler v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 2014-Ohio-5434, ¶ 18-19 (8th Dist.), we affirmed the dismissal of a complaint as untimely filed interpreting the TAO to authorize a clerk of courts to reject a complaint filed without a signature in violation of Civ.R. 11. | 1 | 1 |
Hanak v. Krausgreen1 sentence2025In Hanak v. Kraus, 2022-Ohio-1941, ¶ 14-15 (8th Dist.), this court affirmed dismissal of a complaint as untimely because Cuyahoga C.P. | 1 | 1 |
Culler v. Marc Glassman, Inc.green1 sentence2025In Rutti v. Dobeck, 2017-Ohio-8737, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), we affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a complaint as untimely filed, in part, because the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas First Amended Temporary Administrative Order (“TAO”) authorized the clerk of courts to reject corrupted documents.2 Similarly, in Culler v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 2014-Ohio-5434, ¶ 18-19 (8th Dist.), we affirmed the dismissal of a complaint as untimely filed interpreting the TAO to authorize a clerk of courts to reject a complaint filed without a signature in violation of Civ.R. 11. | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Purdy v. Clermont County Board of Electionsgreen1 sentence2024Purdy at 346. 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 3513.257(C) in effect, there is no statute that sets forth the requirements for an independent candidate to qualify for the general-election ballot. {¶ 39} Tjaden suggests that this court can create a new signature requirement and grant a writ of mandamus placing him on the ballot because he has met that new threshold. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walkergreen1 sentence2021Fayette No. CA97-02-004, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4522 , * 7 (Oct. 6, 1997), quoting State v. Walker, 90 Ohio App.3d 352, 358 (3d Dist.1993). {¶25} Appellant suggests that the signature on the waiver form may not be his – contending there is no record of who actually signed the document. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bazell v. City of Cincinnati
green
2 sentences2002Reading the phrase “setting forth any proposed amendment to this Charter or a revised or amended Charter” in the context of Section 2 and according the language its ordinary and common usage, it manifestly modifies “petition” and cannot possibly modify “last regular municipal election.” In fact, “such proposed amendment” refers to the phrase “petition * * * setting forth any proposed amendment to this Charter” in Section 2 rather than “last regular municipal election.” {¶ 30} Moreover, to the extent that the charter could be construed to conflict with Ohio constitutional provisions, the consti 2002Reading the phrase “setting forth any proposed amendment to this Charter or a revised or amended Charter” in the context of Section 2 and according the language its ordinary and common usage, it manifestly modifies “petition” and cannot possibly modify “last regular municipal election.” In fact, “such proposed amendment” refers to the phrase “petition * * * setting forth any proposed amendment to this Charter” in Section 2 rather than “last regular municipal election.” {¶ 30} Moreover, to the extent that the charter could be construed to conflict with Ohio constitutional provisions, the consti | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State ex rel. Fattlar v. Boyle
green
2 sentences2002Fattlar v. Boyle (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 123, 127 , 698 N.E.2d 987 ; cf. R.C. 1.47(A). {¶ 29} In applying the foregoing interpretative rules here, the signature requirement of Section 2, Article IX of the Westlake Charter does not conflict with the constitutional provisions in this instance. 2002Fattlar v. Boyle (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 123, 127 , 698 N.E.2d 987 ; cf. R.C. 1.47(A). {¶ 29} In applying the foregoing interpretative rules here, the signature requirement of Section 2, Article IX of the Westlake Charter does not conflict with the constitutional provisions in this instance. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Buckeye Community Hope Foundation v. City of Cuyahoga Falls
green
2 sentences2002Reading the phrase “setting forth any proposed amendment to this Charter or a revised or amended Charter” in the context of Section 2 and according the language its ordinary and common usage, it manifestly modifies “petition” and cannot possibly modify “last regular municipal election.” In fact, “such proposed amendment” refers to the phrase “petition * * * setting forth any proposed amendment to this Charter” in Section 2 rather than “last regular municipal election.” {¶30} Moreover, to the extent that the charter could be construed to conflict with Ohio constitutional provisions, the constit 2002Reading the phrase “setting forth any proposed amendment to this Charter or a revised or amended Charter” in the context of Section 2 and according the language its ordinary and common usage, it manifestly modifies “petition” and cannot possibly modify “last regular municipal election.” In fact, “such proposed amendment” refers to the phrase “petition * * * setting forth any proposed amendment to this Charter” in Section 2 rather than “last regular municipal election.” {¶ 30} Moreover, to the extent that the charter could be construed to conflict with Ohio constitutional provisions, the consti | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State ex rel. Beard v. Hardin (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2018"When a sufficient number of electors sign the petition, the municipality's legislative authority, by ordinance, shall submit the proposal to the electorate." Id. , citing Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII, Sections 8 and 9. {¶ 14} Relators, four Youngstown electors, argue that they have a clear right to have their proposed charter amendment placed on the ballot because their petition satisfies the signature requirement and Youngstown City Council passed an ordinance calling for placement of the measure on the ballot. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kraus
neutral
1 sentence2007Bar Assn. v. Kraus, 97 Ohio St.3d 1218 , 2002-Ohio-6299 , 778 N.E.2d 1045 . {¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we now suspend respondent’s license to practice for two years, based on findings that he (1) neglected the cases of four additional clients, (2) failed to return funds to which two clients were entitled, and (3) notarized a client’s signature in violation of the jurat. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Stone v. Medaglia-Dell
neutral
1 sentence2007Bar Assn. v. Kraus, 97 Ohio St.3d 1218 , 2002-Ohio-6299 , 778 N.E.2d 1045 . {¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we now suspend respondent’s license to practice for two years, based on findings that he (1) neglected the cases of four additional clients, (2) failed to return funds to which two clients were entitled, and (3) notarized a client’s signature in violation of the jurat. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Kraus
neutral
1 sentence2007Bar Assn. v. Kraus, 97 Ohio St.3d 1218 , 2002-Ohio-6299 , 778 N.E.2d 1045 . {¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we now suspend respondent’s license to practice for two years, based on findings that he (1) neglected the cases of four additional clients, (2) failed to return funds to which two clients were entitled, and (3) notarized a client’s signature in violation of the jurat. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Xie
green
1 sentence1999The trial court could not, therefore, find a "reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea." State v. Xie, supra, at syllabus 1. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State Ex Rel. Ilg v. Myers
neutral
2 sentences1993Ilg v. Myers (1933), 127 Ohio St. 171 , 187 N.E. 301 , in which an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment was challenged for having failed the signature requirement in Sections la and g, Article II, Ohio Constitution (ten percent of the “votes cast for the office of governor at the last preceding election therefor”). 1993Ilg v. Myers (1933), 127 Ohio St. 171 , 187 N.E. 301 , in which an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment was challenged for having failed the signature requirement in Sections la and g, Article II, Ohio Constitution (ten percent of the “votes cast for the office of governor at the last preceding election therefor”). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Hall's Safe Co. v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co.
neutral
1 sentence1992On November 22, 1989, Barnhart wrote individual letters to Zeglen and Davila advising that West Manor had not executed the agreement on behalf of its officers and members; that Heath had stated that she advised Zeglen on several occasions that Mr. Strotz, President of West Manor, could not bind the individual applicants for intervention but could speak only as a landowner for the particular lot owned by West Manor; that Zeglen had, himself, prepared and presented for execution a former proposed settlement agreement which contained a signature clause indicating authority on the part of Heath to | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Hentkowski
green
2 sentences1991Id. at 177 , 397 N.W. 2d at 258 . 1991Id. at 177 , 397 N.W. 2d at 258 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.