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 2001–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bowers v. Ohio State Dental Boardgreen2 sentences2008See Bowers v. Ohio State Dental Bd. (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 376 , 381 , 755 N.E.2d 948 , citing Sheward , 86 Ohio St.3d at 471 and 503. 2008See Bowers v. Ohio State Dental Bd. (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 376 , 381 , 755 N.E.2d 948 , citing Sheward , 86 Ohio St.3d at 471 and 503. | 2 | 2 |
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Shewardgreen2 sentences2008See Bowers v. Ohio State Dental Bd. (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 376 , 381 , 755 N.E.2d 948 , citing Sheward , 86 Ohio St.3d at 471 and 503. 2006See Bowers v. Ohio State Dental Bd. (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 376 , 381 , 755 N.E.2d 948 , citing Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d at 471 and 503. | 2 | 2 |
Doe v. Portergreen2 sentences2024A court may excuse a plaintiff from identifying herself only when her “ ‘privacy interests substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings.’ ” Id., citing Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558 , -8- 560 (6th Cir.2004). {¶ 17} “Courts have identified numerous factors that may be relevant to balancing a plaintiff's privacy interests against the presumption of openness.” Id. 2024A court may excuse a plaintiff from identifying herself only when her “ ‘privacy interests substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings.’ ” Id., citing Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558 , -8- 560 (6th Cir.2004). {¶ 17} “Courts have identified numerous factors that may be relevant to balancing a plaintiff's privacy interests against the presumption of openness.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2025See id. {¶ 24} Luikart contends it is against the manifest weight of the evidence that he engaged in the statutorily required pattern of conduct and that Copas was in danger of immediate harm. | 1 | 1 |
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. MMCO, L.L.C.green1 sentence2025Assn. v. MMCO, L.L.C., 2021-Ohio-4605, ¶ 58 (8th Dist.), citing Dombroski v. Wellpoint, Inc., 2008-Ohio-4827 , ¶ 17, 26. | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Shanahan (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2024Despite these well-established rules and principles encouraging the openness of judicial proceedings, parties are permitted to proceed anonymously in “exceptional circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 6; Shanahan at ¶ 36 (“It is the rare exception for a litigant to be allowed to proceed anonymously.”). 2024Ohio courts have held that exceptional circumstances exist, and a party may proceed under a pseudonym, where a “‘plaintiff’s privacy interests substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings.’” Id., quoting Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004); Shanahan at ¶ 36 ; Cedarville Univ. at ¶ 16. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson
green
2 sentences2021Id. at ¶ 17, 26, citing Belvedere at 287; Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 475 , 123 S.Ct. 1655 , 155 L.E.2d 643 (2003). 2021Id. at ¶ 17, 26, citing Belvedere at 287; Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 475 , 123 S.Ct. 1655 , 155 L.E.2d 643 (2003). | 2 | 2019–2021 |
Doe v. Megless
green
2 sentences2024“The public's right to know a litigant's identity derives from the United States and Ohio Constitutions and the common law.” (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 31. {¶ 16} “It is the rare exception for a litigant to be allowed to proceed anonymously.” Id. at ¶ 36, citing Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404, 408 , (3d Cir.2011). 2024A court may excuse a plaintiff from identifying herself only when her “ ‘privacy interests substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings.’ ” Id., citing Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558 , -8- 560 (6th Cir.2004). {¶ 17} “Courts have identified numerous factors that may be relevant to balancing a plaintiff's privacy interests against the presumption of openness.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Ass'n v. R.E. Roark Companies, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019Id. at ¶ 17, 26 citing Belvedere, 67 Ohio St.3d at 287 ; Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 475 , 123 S.Ct. 1655 , 155 L.E.2d 643 (2003). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016Dombroski, 119 Ohio St.3d 506 at ¶ 26 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Geauga County Court of Common Pleas
green
2 sentences2001Div. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 79, 89-90 , 734 N.E.2d 1214, 1223-1224 , remain manifest. {¶ 36} Fortunately, it is the rare exception when the underlying charge in a criminal case heard in juvenile court involves aggravated murder. 2001Div. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 79, 89-90 , 734 N.E.2d 1214, 1223-1224 , remain manifest. {¶ 36} Fortunately, it is the rare exception when the underlying charge in a criminal case heard in juvenile court involves aggravated murder. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.