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 1933–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davnergreen1 sentence2022Morris presents the divided panel decision in State v. Davner, 2017-Ohio-8862 , 100 N.E.3d 1247, ¶ 1 (8th Dist.), as being directly on point and the sole support of his claim. | 1 | 1 |
McGee v. C & S Loungegreen1 sentence2017No. 10AP-1122, 2011-Ohio-2812 , ¶ 11, quoting McGee v. C&S Lounge, 108 Ohio App.3d 656, 661 (10th Dist.1996). {¶ 11} Ullmann first asserts that she did not appear at the support hearing because "it appeared at the time that she was not supposed to" attend. | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Martingreen2 sentences2008See also Martin v. Martin (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 101 , 8 O.O.3d 106 , 374 N.E.2d 1384 , paragraph one of the syllabus (trustees of a discretionary trust subject to a support standard may be required to exercise their discretion to distribute income and principal in accordance with the standard); Metz, 145 Ohio App.3d 304 , 762 N.E.2d 1032 . 2008See also Martin v. Martin (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 101 , 8 O.O.3d 106 , 374 N.E.2d 1384 , paragraph one of the syllabus (trustees of a discretionary trust subject to a support standard may be required to exercise their discretion to distribute income and principal in accordance with the standard); Metz, 145 Ohio App.3d 304 , 762 N.E.2d 1032 . | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Ohio Department of Human Servicesgreen2 sentences2008See also Young, 76 Ohio St.3d at 551 , 668 N.E.2d 908 (concluding that under the applicable Medicaid-eligibility rules, the fact that the discretionary trust did not include a support standard meant that the beneficiary could not compel the trustee to make a distribution, and therefore the beneficiary had no control of the resource, and it should not be counted in assessing the beneficiary’s Medicaid eligibility). 6 {¶ 20} On remand, the court of appeals will need to determine (1) the nature of Charlotte’s interest in the trust, construing the trust according to the law in effect at the time i 2008See also Young, 76 Ohio St.3d at 551 , 668 N.E.2d 908 (concluding that under the applicable Medicaid-eligibility rules, the fact that the discretionary trust did not include a support standard meant that the beneficiary could not compel the trustee to make a distribution, and therefore the beneficiary had no control of the resource, and it should not be counted in assessing the beneficiary’s Medicaid eligibility). 6 {¶ 20} On remand, the court of appeals will need to determine (1) the nature of Charlotte’s interest in the trust, construing the trust according to the law in effect at the time i | 1 | 1 |
Schlagenhauf v. Holdergreen2 sentences2004See Schlangenhauf v. Holder (1964), 379 U.S. 104 , 118-119 , 85 S.Ct. 234 , 242-243 . 2004See Schlangenhauf v. Holder (1964), 379 U.S. 104 , 118-119 , 85 S.Ct. 234 , 242-243 . | 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. Daver
green
1 sentence2022Morris presents the divided panel decision in State v. Davner, 2017-Ohio-8862 , 100 N.E.3d 1247, ¶ 1 (8th Dist.), as being directly on point and the sole support of his claim. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Booth v. Booth
green
2 sentences2021Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144 , 541 N.E.2d 1028 (1989). 2021Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144 , 541 N.E.2d 1028 (1989). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re Adoption of Bovett
green
2 sentences2020In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 , 515 N.E.2d 919 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus, following In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 , 492 N.E.2d 140 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus. 2020In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 , 515 N.E.2d 919 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus, following In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 , 492 N.E.2d 140 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re Adoption of Masa
green
2 sentences2020In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 , 515 N.E.2d 919 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus, following In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 , 492 N.E.2d 140 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus. 2020In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 , 515 N.E.2d 919 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus, following In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 , 492 N.E.2d 140 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re Adoption of Holcomb
green
2 sentences2017In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 , 367–368, 481 N.E.2d 613 (1985). {¶9} Paul then highlights portions of the record, which, he argues, show significant interference by Jessica justifying his lack of contact. {¶10} Paul refers to her: failing to encourage visitation; ignoring his calls and texts; changing the child’s residence without telling him; blocking him on social media; quickly leaving when she and the child encountered him in a parking lot; failing to recall having missed his calls, despite phone records; calling an adoption lawyer two days after Paul raised the subject of v 2017In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 , 367–368, 481 N.E.2d 613 (1985). {¶9} Paul then highlights portions of the record, which, he argues, show significant interference by Jessica justifying his lack of contact. {¶10} Paul refers to her: failing to encourage visitation; ignoring his calls and texts; changing the child’s residence without telling him; blocking him on social media; quickly leaving when she and the child encountered him in a parking lot; failing to recall having missed his calls, despite phone records; calling an adoption lawyer two days after Paul raised the subject of v | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Gibson, 2007-P-0021 (12-21-2007)
green
1 sentence2009The only evidence appellant submitted to this court to support his claim of this agreement is a self-serving affidavit, which is "`[g]enerally * * * insufficient to demonstrate manifest injustice.'" State v. Gibson , 2007-Ohio-6926 , at ¶ 33 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ternansky v. Rabatin
green
2 sentences2008In re Estate of Temansky (9th Dist. 1957), 4 O.O.2d 329 , 141 N.E.2d 189 ; Morris v. Daiker (1929), 35 Ohio App. 394 , 172 N.E. 540 . 2008In re Estate of Temansky (9th Dist. 1957), 4 O.O.2d 329 , 141 N.E.2d 189 ; Morris v. Daiker (1929), 35 Ohio App. 394 , 172 N.E. 540 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Metz v. Ohio Department of Human Services
green
2 sentences2008See also Martin v. Martin (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 101 , 8 O.O.3d 106 , 374 N.E.2d 1384 , paragraph one of the syllabus (trustees of a discretionary trust subject to a support standard may be required to exercise their discretion to distribute income and principal in accordance with the standard); Metz, 145 Ohio App.3d 304 , 762 N.E.2d 1032 . 2008See also Martin v. Martin (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 101 , 8 O.O.3d 106 , 374 N.E.2d 1384 , paragraph one of the syllabus (trustees of a discretionary trust subject to a support standard may be required to exercise their discretion to distribute income and principal in accordance with the standard); Metz, 145 Ohio App.3d 304 , 762 N.E.2d 1032 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Morris v. Daiker, Admr.
neutral
2 sentences2008In re Estate of Temansky (9th Dist. 1957), 4 O.O.2d 329 , 141 N.E.2d 189 ; Morris v. Daiker (1929), 35 Ohio App. 394 , 172 N.E. 540 . 2008In re Estate of Temansky (9th Dist. 1957), 4 O.O.2d 329 , 141 N.E.2d 189 ; Morris v. Daiker (1929), 35 Ohio App. 394 , 172 N.E. 540 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Marker v. Grimm
green
2 sentences2000In Marker v. Grimm (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 139 , 142 , 601 N.E.2d 496 , 498-499 , the trial court failed to complete a worksheet, and the transcript of the support hearing was "devoid of any information concerning many of the items necessary to complete a worksheet." In deviating, the court also did not make specific findings that the mandated amount of child support under the guidelines would be unjust and would not be in the best interests of the child. 2000In Marker v. Grimm (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 139 , 142 , 601 N.E.2d 496 , 498-499 , the trial court failed to complete a worksheet, and the transcript of the support hearing was "devoid of any information concerning many of the items necessary to complete a worksheet." In deviating, the court also did not make specific findings that the mandated amount of child support under the guidelines would be unjust and would not be in the best interests of the child. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Mihna v. Mihna
green
2 sentences1996See R.C. 2301.36(A); Mihna v. Mihna (1989), 48 Ohio App.3d 303 , 549 N.E.2d 558 . 1996See R.C. 2301.36(A); Mihna v. Mihna (1989), 48 Ohio App.3d 303 , 549 N.E.2d 558 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Wilson v. Webber
neutral
1 sentence1933Construing that statute Justice Biglow in Wilson v Webber, 68 Mass. (2 Gray) 558 (1854) said: “It authorizes the plaintiff and the defendant, * within a prescribed period oí time, to file interrogatories ‘for the discovery of facts and documents material to the support or defense of the suit, to be answered on oath by'the adverse party;’ that is, the plaintiff may interrogate upon any matter material to the support of his case, and the defendant ijpon those material to his defense. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.