76 Ohio opinions name it 4 courts 1902–2025 17 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bertell Ollman v. Rowland Evans, Robert Novakgreen2 sentences2006See, also, Ollman v. Evans (D.D.C.1984), 750 F.2d 970 , 979-984 . 2002See, also, Ollman v. Evans (D.D.C. 1984), 750 F.2d 970 , 979-984 . {¶ 39} The weight given to any one factor under this inquiry will vary depending on the circumstances of each case. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2016“Evidence of use by the interrogators of an inherently coercive tactic (e.g., physical abuse, threats, deprivation of food, medical treatment, or sleep) will trigger [a] totality of the circumstances analysis.” State v. Clark, 38 Ohio St.3d 252, 261 , 527 N.E.2d 844 (1988). 2016“Evidence of use by the interrogators of an inherently coercive tactic (e.g., physical abuse, threats, deprivation of food, medical treatment, or sleep) will trigger [a] totality of the circumstances analysis.” State v. Clark, 38 Ohio St.3d 252, 261 , 527 N.E.2d 844 (1988). | 2 | 6 |
In re Burtongreen2 sentences2022Importantly, when “assessing whether a defendant is a mentally ill person subject to court order,” a trial court is “to consider the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 29, citing Williams, 126 Ohio St.3d 65 , 2010-Ohio-2453 , at ¶ 15 and In re Burton, 11 Ohio St.3d 147, 149-150 (1984) (outlining the factors for a trial court to consider when conducting its totality of the circumstances analysis). {¶48} Here, the trial court concluded that the State presented clear and convincing evidence that Sims is a mentally ill person subject to court order. 2018See also In re Burton at 149-150 (outlining a variety of factors for the court to consider in conducting its totality of the circumstances analysis). {¶30} If a trial court determines that the State has set forth clear and convincing evidence to satisfy the elements of R.C. 2945.39(A)(2)(a) and (b), “the court shall commit the 14 defendant.” R.C. 2945.39(D)(1). | 2 | 2 |
Surace v. Wuligergreen2 sentences2022See Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 231-233 , 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986). {¶ 21} Early on, this court acknowledged that there were many views on the litigation privilege, ranging from absolute privilege for all statements made during judicial proceedings, to all relevant statements made during judicial proceedings, to all not false and malicious statements made during judicial proceedings. 2022In State v. Brown, __Ohio St.3d__, 2022-Ohio-4347 , the No. 22AP-242 8 court observed that while the privilege "is a deeply rooted common-law rule that protects individuals from defamation lawsuits," it described the "English rule" as "broad" and contrasted it with Ohio's version of the rule, which "limits the types of defamatory statements that are considered privileged and limits the circumstances in which the privilege applies." Id. at ¶ 20, citing Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 231-233 (1986). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fraziergreen2 sentences2021"The critical issue is whether discriminatory intent is inherent in counsel's explanation for use of the strike; intent is present if the explanation is merely a pretext for exclusion on the basis of race." Hicks at 98 , citing Hernandez at 363 . {¶ 27} "Finally, [under the third prong,] the court must decide, based on all the circumstances, whether the defendant has proved purposeful racial discrimination." State v. Johnson, 144 Ohio St.3d 518 , 2015-Ohio-4903, ¶ 21 , citing Batson at 98 . " 'In doing so, the court must consider the circumstances of the challenge and access [sic] the plausibi 2016"In doing so, the court No. 15AP-544 16 must consider the circumstances of the challenge and access the plausibility of the prosecutor's explanation in order to determine whether it is merely pretextual." Id., citing Miller-El I and State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2007-Ohi0-5048, ¶ 65. | 1 | 7 |
Miller-El v. Cockrellgreen2 sentences2016“In doing so, the court must consider the circumstances of the challenge and assess the plausibility of the prosecutor’s explanation in order to determine whether it is merely pretextual.” Johnson, 144 Ohio St.3d 518 , 2015-Ohio-4903 , --- N.E.3d ----, at ¶ 21, citing Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2007-Ohio-5048 , 873 N.E.2d 1263 , ¶ 65. 2016“In doing so, the court must consider the circumstances of the challenge and assess the plausibility of the prosecutor’s explanation in order to determine whether it is merely pretextual.” Johnson, 144 Ohio St.3d 518 , 2015-Ohio-4903 , --- N.E.3d ----, at ¶ 21, citing Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2007-Ohio-5048 , 873 N.E.2d 1263 , ¶ 65. | 1 | 5 |
State ex rel. Massie v. Board of Education of Gahanna-Jefferson Public Schoolsgreen2 sentences1998Massie, 76 Ohio St.3d at 589 , 669 N.E.2d at 843 . 1998Massie, 76 Ohio St.3d at 589 , 669 N.E.2d at 843 . | 1 | 2 |
Maryland v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2025Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 414 (1997); accord State v. Grubbs, 2017-Ohio-41, ¶ 29 (6th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gurleygreen1 sentence2025State v. Gurley, 2015-Ohio-5361, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Roberts, 2006-Ohio-3665 , ¶ 100; State v. Jones, 2022-Ohio- 561, ¶ 15 (4th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grubbsgreen1 sentence2025Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 414 (1997); accord State v. Grubbs, 2017-Ohio-41, ¶ 29 (6th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2024See State v. Osie, 2014- Ohio-2966, ¶ 179, citing State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (2000), [paragraph three of the syllabus]. | 1 | 1 |
R.H. v. J.H.green1 sentence2023R.H. v. J.H., 2020-Ohio-3402, ¶ 9-14 (trial court abused its discretion in denying respondent’s request for a continuance of the full hearing of a domestic violence civil protection order so that he could obtain counsel where, “[r]ather than engaging in any consideration of the particular circumstances and factors surrounding the request as set forth in Unger,” the magistrate denied the request based solely on a perceived need for expediency in the proceedings); cf. Slusser v. Klosterman, 3d Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Arthur Theiss v. Gordon H. Scherergreen1 sentence2022The English rule, as explained above, is broad, see Theiss v. Scherer, 396 F.2d 646, 649 (6th Cir.1968); whereas the American rule, which was adopted by this court, limits the types of defamatory statements that are considered privileged and limits the circumstances in which the privilege applies. | 1 | 1 |
| Wampler v. Higginsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re N.S.green | 1 | 1 |
| Miller-El v. Dretkegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Upjohn Co. v. Ohio Department of Human Servicesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnson, 2006-Ca-04 (4-10-2007)green | 1 | 1 |
| Dunlop v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Treeshgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Maurergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Archbold Truck Line, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Treeshgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Texas v. Grangergreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Disbarment of Whittingtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Hollandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wilson v. Trexlergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Poolegreen | 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. Johnson (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2021"The critical issue is whether discriminatory intent is inherent in counsel's explanation for use of the strike; intent is present if the explanation is merely a pretext for exclusion on the basis of race." Hicks at 98 , citing Hernandez at 363 . {¶ 27} "Finally, [under the third prong,] the court must decide, based on all the circumstances, whether the defendant has proved purposeful racial discrimination." State v. Johnson, 144 Ohio St.3d 518 , 2015-Ohio-4903, ¶ 21 , citing Batson at 98 . " 'In doing so, the court must consider the circumstances of the challenge and access [sic] the plausibi 2021"The critical issue is whether discriminatory intent is inherent in counsel's explanation for use of the strike; intent is present if the explanation is merely a pretext for exclusion on the basis of race." Hicks at 98 , citing Hernandez at 363 . {¶ 27} "Finally, [under the third prong,] the court must decide, based on all the circumstances, whether the defendant has proved purposeful racial discrimination." State v. Johnson, 144 Ohio St.3d 518 , 2015-Ohio-4903, ¶ 21 , citing Batson at 98 . " 'In doing so, the court must consider the circumstances of the challenge and access [sic] the plausibi | 8 | 2016–2022 |
Scott v. News-Herald
green
2 sentences2006First is the specific language used, second is whether the statement is verifiable, third is the general context of the statement and fourth is the broader context in which the statement appeared.' Scott , 25 Ohio St.3d at 250 . 'This analysis is not a bright-line test[.]' Vail , 72 Ohio St.3d at 282 . '[T]he totality of the circumstances test * * * can only be used as a compass to show general direction and not a map to set rigid boundaries.' Id., quoting Scott , 25 Ohio St.3d at 250 . 2006First is the specific language used, second is whether the statement is verifiable, third is the general context of the statement and fourth is the broader context in which the statement appeared.' Scott , 25 Ohio St.3d at 250 . 'This analysis is not a bright-line test[.]' Vail , 72 Ohio St.3d at 282 . '[T]he totality of the circumstances test * * * can only be used as a compass to show general direction and not a map to set rigid boundaries.' Id., quoting Scott , 25 Ohio St.3d at 250 . | 6 | 2001–2023 |
Vail v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences2006First is the specific language used, second is whether the statement is verifiable, third is the general context of the statement and fourth is the broader context in which the statement appeared.' Scott , 25 Ohio St.3d at 250 . 'This analysis is not a bright-line test[.]' Vail , 72 Ohio St.3d at 282 . '[T]he totality of the circumstances test * * * can only be used as a compass to show general direction and not a map to set rigid boundaries.' Id., quoting Scott , 25 Ohio St.3d at 250 . 2006First is the specific language used, second is whether the statement is verifiable, third is the general context of the statement and fourth is the broader context in which the statement appeared.' Scott , 25 Ohio St.3d at 250 . 'This analysis is not a bright-line test[.]' Vail , 72 Ohio St.3d at 282 . '[T]he totality of the circumstances test * * * can only be used as a compass to show general direction and not a map to set rigid boundaries.' Id., quoting Scott , 25 Ohio St.3d at 250 . | 6 | 2001–2021 |
Lepera v. Fuson
green
2 sentences2007Lepera v. Fuson (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 17, 26 , 613 N.E.2d 1060 . 2007Lepera v. Fuson (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 17, 26 , 613 N.E.2d 1060 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Parker
green
2 sentences2006State v. Parker (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 82 , 558 N.E.2d 1164 . 2006State v. Parker (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 82 , 558 N.E.2d 1164 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Schoen
green
2 sentences2006State v. Parker (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 82 , 558 N.E.2d 1164 . 2006State v. Parker (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 82 , 558 N.E.2d 1164 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Illinois v. Gates
green
2 sentences1995With regard to the first step, the court adopted the “totality of the circumstances test” of Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 , and articulated that test as follows: “In determining the sufficiency of probable cause in an affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant, ‘[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability 1995With regard to the first step, the court adopted the “totality of the circumstances test” of Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 , and articulated that test as follows: “In determining the sufficiency of probable cause in an affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant, ‘[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability | 2 | 1995–2005 |
Lord v. Daugherty
green
2 sentences2004Appellant refers to Lord v. Daugherty (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 441 , 20 O.O.3d 376 , 423 N.E.2d 96 ; and Hampton v. Trimble (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 282 , 655 N.E.2d 432 , and argues that because the accident occurred on the street outside Adkins’s home, and because appellee (her employer) benefited by her being there, she should recover under this test. 1991Applying the principles of liberal construction, the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in Lord, supra, to the case sub judice, we find that decedent's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and is, therefore, compensable under R.C. 4123.01(C). | 2 | 1991–2004 |
In re Watson
green
2 sentences2003Fare v, Michael C. (1979), 442 U.S.707; In re Watson (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 86 , 89-90 . 1998Fare v. Michael C. (1979), 442 U.S. 707 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 ; In re Watson (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 86, 89-90 , 548 N.E.2d 210, 213-215 . | 2 | 1998–2003 |
State ex rel. Bossa v. Giles
green
2 sentences1995Bossa v. Giles (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 273, 276 , 18 O.O.3d 461 , 462- 463, 415 N.E.2d 256, 258 . {¶ 13} Based on the foregoing, the availability of a breach of contract action does not bar the issuance of a writ of mandamus under the particular circumstances at bar. 1995Bossa v. Giles (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 273, 276 , 18 O.O.3d 461 , 462- 463, 415 N.E.2d 256, 258 . {¶ 13} Based on the foregoing, the availability of a breach of contract action does not bar the issuance of a writ of mandamus under the particular circumstances at bar. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2022Id., citing Batson at 98 . {¶ 40} In reaching its determination, the trial court must consider the circumstances of the challenge and assess the plausibility of the prosecutor’s explanation for discriminatory pretext. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Brown
neutral
1 sentence2022In State v. Brown, __Ohio St.3d__, 2022-Ohio-4347 , the No. 22AP-242 8 court observed that while the privilege "is a deeply rooted common-law rule that protects individuals from defamation lawsuits," it described the "English rule" as "broad" and contrasted it with Ohio's version of the rule, which "limits the types of defamatory statements that are considered privileged and limits the circumstances in which the privilege applies." Id. at ¶ 20, citing Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 231-233 (1986). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Wyatt v. Autozone, Inc., Unpublished Decision (12-15-2003)
green
1 sentence2022Van Wert No. 15-03-05, 2003-Ohio-6706 (totality of the circumstances exception applied when the injury occurred in the parking lot of the store where the employee was working at that time and the parking lot was under the control of the employer); Owens v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 8th Dist. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2022Importantly, when “assessing whether a defendant is a mentally ill person subject to court order,” a trial court is “to consider the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 29, citing Williams, 126 Ohio St.3d 65 , 2010-Ohio-2453 , at ¶ 15 and In re Burton, 11 Ohio St.3d 147, 149-150 (1984) (outlining the factors for a trial court to consider when conducting its totality of the circumstances analysis). {¶48} Here, the trial court concluded that the State presented clear and convincing evidence that Sims is a mentally ill person subject to court order. 2022Importantly, when “assessing whether a defendant is a mentally ill person subject to court order,” a trial court is “to consider the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 29, citing Williams, 126 Ohio St.3d 65 , 2010-Ohio-2453 , at ¶ 15 and In re Burton, 11 Ohio St.3d 147, 149-150 (1984) (outlining the factors for a trial court to consider when conducting its totality of the circumstances analysis). {¶48} Here, the trial court concluded that the State presented clear and convincing evidence that Sims is a mentally ill person subject to court order. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Stair v. Mid Ohio Home Health Ltd.
neutral
1 sentence2022Richland No. 2010-CA-0114, 2011-Ohio-2351 (accident occurred on a sidewalk under the employer’s control, not on a public roadway). {¶36} Cases in which the totality of the circumstances exception applies are those where the accident occurs at a location where the employer physically controls the scene. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Metro Diplomat Healthcare
green
1 sentence2022Cuyahoga No. 100799, 2014-Ohio-3146, ¶ 2 . 3 Civ.R. 10(D)(2)(c) details the circumstances and factors the court is to consider in determining whether good cause exists to grant the plaintiff an extension of time to file the affidavit of merit. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| American Chemical Society v. Leadscope, Inc. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Darmond
green
2 sentences2021State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio-966 , 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 35 . 2021State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio-966 , 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 35 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Thompson (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Maryland v. Pringle green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Green green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Minton green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In Re Wilson, Unpublished Decision (6-27-2005) green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| March v. Steed Ents., Inc. neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| United States v. James and Mallay green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Gumm green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Gumm green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Bodyke green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Von Moltke v. Gillies green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| McClain v. McClain green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Lafreniere green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Souel green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| City of Lakewood v. Papadelis green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Swidler & Berlin v. United States green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Jorg v. Cincinnati Black United Front green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Didier v. Johns green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Still v. McLemore Warden green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Retherford green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Neil v. Biggers green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Lynch green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.