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.
10 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc.
yellow
2 sentences2009In Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 608 , the Supreme Court of Ohio first recognized the intentional tort exception to the workers' compensation exclusivity doctrine by allowing employees to bring an intentional tort claim against their employers. 2008In Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 608 , the Supreme Court of Ohio first recognized the intentional tort exception to the workers' compensation exclusivity doctrine by allowing employees to bring an intentional tort claim against their employers. | 8 | 1998–2009 |
Hannah v. Dayton Power & Light Co.
green
2 sentences2007Id." Doe v. Choices, Inc. , Montgomery App. No. 21350, 2006-Ohio-5757 . {¶ 20} The Ohio Supreme Court "first recognized an intentional tort exception to the workers' compensation exclusivity doctrine by allowing employees to bring an intentional tort lawsuit against their employers." Hannah v. Dayton Power Light Co. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d482, 484, 696 N.E.2d 1044 , 1998-Ohio-408 . 1999In Hannah v. Dayton Power Light Co., the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the history of its establishment of an employee's claim against his employer for intentional tort. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 482 , 484-485 . *Page 744 The Court first recognized such a claim in Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 608 , when it found that an exception existed to the worker's compensation exclusivity doctrine which allowed an employee to bring an intentional tort action against his employer. | 2 | 1999–2007 |
Hannah v. Dayton Power & Light Co.
green
2 sentences2007An intentional tort `"is an act committed with the intent to injure another, or committed with the belief that such an injury is substantially certain to occur." Id. 2007Id." Doe v. Choices, Inc. , Montgomery App. No. 21350, 2006-Ohio-5757 . {¶ 20} The Ohio Supreme Court "first recognized an intentional tort exception to the workers' compensation exclusivity doctrine by allowing employees to bring an intentional tort lawsuit against their employers." Hannah v. Dayton Power Light Co. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d482, 484, 696 N.E.2d 1044 , 1998-Ohio-408 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Doe v. Choices, Inc., Unpublished Decision (10-27-2006)
neutral
1 sentence2007Id." Doe v. Choices, Inc. , Montgomery App. No. 21350, 2006-Ohio-5757 . {¶ 20} The Ohio Supreme Court "first recognized an intentional tort exception to the workers' compensation exclusivity doctrine by allowing employees to bring an intentional tort lawsuit against their employers." Hannah v. Dayton Power Light Co. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d482, 484, 696 N.E.2d 1044 , 1998-Ohio-408 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Jones v. VIP Development Co.
green
2 sentences2006The Supreme Court defined the term "intentional tort" in Jones v. VIP Development Company (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 90 , 472 N.E. 2d 1046 . 2006The Supreme Court defined the term "intentional tort" in Jones v. VIP Development Company (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 90 , 472 N.E. 2d 1046 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.