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.
72 Ohio opinions name it 4 courts 1980–2025 15 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences2025Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”). 2025Instead, it was only raised for the first time at the June 14, 2024 hearing, when Father's attorney brought it up as an afterthought, "while we're here." {¶ 16} "An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding . . . is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). | 8 | 58 |
In Re Frinzlgreen2 sentences2023Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); accord In re Thompkins at ¶ 13. {¶38} Moreover, given the importance of the parent-child bond, “a Juvenile Court cannot make a valid order changing temporary commitment of a dependent child to a permanent one without a service of notice upon the parent of the child, strictly in accordance with the law.” In re Frinzl, 152 Ohio St. 164, 173 , 87 N.E.2d 583 (1949); accord In re S.S., 9th Dist. 2023Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); accord In re Thompkins at ¶ 13. {¶38} Moreover, given the importance of the parent-child bond, “a Juvenile Court cannot make a valid order changing temporary commitment of a dependent child to a permanent one without a service of notice upon the parent of the child, strictly in accordance with the law.” In re Frinzl, 152 Ohio St. 164, 173 , 87 N.E.2d 583 (1949); accord In re S.S., 9th Dist. | 4 | 4 |
Ohio Valley Radiology Associates, Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hospital Ass'ngreen2 sentences2021Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118, 125 , 502 N.E.2d 599 (1986). “ ‘An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding * * * is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ” Id. at 124-125 , quoting Mullane v. Cent. 2021Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118, 125 , 502 N.E.2d 599 (1986). “ ‘An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding * * * is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ” Id. at 124-125 , quoting Mullane v. Cent. | 1 | 9 |
Akron-Canton Regional Airport Authority v. Swinehartgreen2 sentences2023“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Id. at 406 , quoting Mullane v. Cent. 2008See, also, Akron-Canton Regional Airport Authority v. Swinehart (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 403 , 406 (an elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections). | 1 | 7 |
Korn v. Ohio State Medical Boardgreen2 sentences2015Bd., 61 Ohio App.3d 677, 684 (10th Dist.1988), citing Luff v. State, 117 Ohio St.2d 102 (1927). " 'An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.' " Althof v. Ohio State Bd. of Psychology, 10th Dist. 2010Bd. (1988), 61 Ohio App.3d 677, 684 , 573 N.E.2d 1100 , citing Luff v. State (1927), 117 Ohio St. 102 , 157 N.E. 388 . “ ‘An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ” Althof v. Ohio State Bd. of Psychology, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2 |
Samson Sales, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.green2 sentences2021“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Samson Sales, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 66 Ohio St.2d 290, 293 , 421 N.E.2d 522, 524 (1981). {¶34} TM Three offered as proof of notice the affidavit of Nicolas Sandberg who claims he served Rodriguez with a copy of the complaint at a Delray Beach, Florida, address. 2021“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Samson Sales, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 66 Ohio St.2d 290, 293 , 421 N.E.2d 522, 524 (1981). {¶34} TM Three offered as proof of notice the affidavit of Nicolas Sandberg who claims he served Rodriguez with a copy of the complaint at a Delray Beach, Florida, address. | 1 | 1 |
Richard T. Kiko Agency, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Commercegreen1 sentence2017Kiko Agency, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, Div. of Real Estate, 48 Ohio St.3d 74, 76 (1990)(The state has a valid interest in promoting the character, honesty, and intellectual competence of real estate brokers, and the right to engage in the real estate business is in the nature of a privilege granted by the state). {¶ 20} " 'An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to prese | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Thompkins
green
2 sentences2023In re Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409 , 2007-Ohio-5238 , 875 N.E.2d 582 , ¶ 13. “ ‘An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ” Id., quoting Mullane v. Cent. 2018In re Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409 , 2007-Ohio-5238 , 875 N.E.2d 582 , ¶13. ‘An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ Id., quoting Mullane v. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950).” O’Malley v. O’Malley, 8th Dist. | 4 | 2014–2023 |
Althof v. Ohio State Bd. of Psycho., Unpublished Decision (3-8-2007)
green
2 sentences2017No. 05AP-1169, 2007-Ohio-1010, ¶ 19 , quoting Mullane v. Cent. 2016No. 05AP-1169, 2007-Ohio-1010, ¶ 19 , quoting Mullane v. Cent. | 4 | 2010–2017 |
In Re Smith
green
2 sentences2005In re Jones (Nov. 22, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76533, quoting, In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1 , 16 , 601 N.E.2d 45 . {¶ 13} Juv.R. 2005In re Jones (Nov. 22, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76533, quoting, In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1 , 16 , 601 N.E.2d 45 . {¶ 13} Juv.R. | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Mitchell v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2003Janice's affidavit does not refute Thomas' sworn statement that he did not receive a copy of the complaint. {¶ 10} Furthermore, "an elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co. (1950), 339 U.S. 306 , 314 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 49 , 51 . 1981The standard of due process, first enunciated in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950), 339 U. S. 306 , at page 314, is as follows: “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. ” (Emphasis added.) See, also, Mitchell v. Mitchell, supra, at page 51; Regional Airport Authority v. Swinehart, supra, at page 406; In re Foreclosure of Liens (198 | 2 | 1981–2003 |
In re Foreclosure of Liens for Delinquent Taxes
green
2 sentences1981The standard of due process, first enunciated in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950), 339 U. S. 306 , at page 314, is as follows: “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. ” (Emphasis added.) See, also, Mitchell v. Mitchell, supra, at page 51; Regional Airport Authority v. Swinehart, supra, at page 406; In re Foreclosure of Liens (198 1980In reply, we turn to the standard enunciated in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950), 339 U.S. 306 , at page 314, as follows: “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” (Emphasis added.) See In re Foreclosure of Liens, supra. So long as service is “reasonably calculated” to reach interested parties, then the service is constitutionally | 2 | 1980–1981 |
Armstrong v. Manzo
green
2 sentences2021Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118, 125 , 502 N.E.2d 599 (1986). ‘“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965), quoting Mullane v. Cent. 2021Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118, 125 , 502 N.E.2d 599 (1986). ‘“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965), quoting Mullane v. Cent. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Howard v. Ohio State Racing Comm.
neutral
1 sentence2021“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and Scioto App. No. 20CA3925 20 afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Howard v. Ohio State Racing Comm., 2019-Ohio-4013 , 145 N.E.3d 1254 at ¶ 26 (10th Dist. 2019); Mullane v. Cent. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108
green
1 sentence2020No. 108, 111 U.S. -41- Case Nos. 10-19-10, 11, 12, 13 701, 708, 4 S.Ct. 663 (1884), and citing Caldwell v. Carthage, 49 Ohio St. 334 , 348 (1892). “‘An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Id., quoting Mullane v. Cent. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
County Security Agency v. The Ohio Department of Commerce v. Michael J. Betzold, Intervenor-Appellant
green
1 sentence2018Agency v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce , 296 F.3d 477 , 484 (6th Cir.2002). {¶ 20} "An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding * * * is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. * * *" Ohio Valley at 124, 502 N.E.2d 599 , citing Mullane v. Cent. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Fuentes v. Shevin
green
2 sentences2018Hanover Bank & Trust Co. , 339 U.S. 306 , 314, 70 S.Ct. 652 , 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). "[T]he right to notice and an opportunity to be heard 'must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.' " (Citation omitted.) Fuentes v. Shevin , 407 U.S. 67 , 80, 92 S.Ct. 1983 , 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972). 2018Hanover Bank & Trust Co. , 339 U.S. 306 , 314, 70 S.Ct. 652 , 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). "[T]he right to notice and an opportunity to be heard 'must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.' " (Citation omitted.) Fuentes v. Shevin , 407 U.S. 67 , 80, 92 S.Ct. 1983 , 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Luff v. State
green
2 sentences2010Bd. (1988), 61 Ohio App.3d 677, 684 , 573 N.E.2d 1100 , citing Luff v. State (1927), 117 Ohio St. 102 , 157 N.E. 388 . “ ‘An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ” Althof v. Ohio State Bd. of Psychology, 10th Dist. 2010Bd. (1988), 61 Ohio App.3d 677, 684 , 573 N.E.2d 1100 , citing Luff v. State (1927), 117 Ohio St. 102 , 157 N.E. 388 . “ ‘An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ” Althof v. Ohio State Bd. of Psychology, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp.
green
1 sentence2008Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 80 , 85 ; Crist v. Battle Run Fire Dist. (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 191 , 197 . {¶ 21} "An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. * * * The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, * * * and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearanc | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Crist v. Battle Run Fire Dist.
green
1 sentence2008Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 80 , 85 ; Crist v. Battle Run Fire Dist. (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 191 , 197 . {¶ 21} "An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. * * * The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, * * * and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearanc | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Dusenbery v. United States
green
2 sentences2007Dusenbery v. United States (2002), 534 U.S. 161, 170 , 122 S.Ct. 694 , 151 L.Ed.2d 597 . 2007Dusenbery v. United States (2002), 534 U.S. 161, 170 , 122 S.Ct. 694 , 151 L.Ed.2d 597 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Sansea, Inc. v. Mahoning County Board of Elections
neutral
1 sentence1999Bd. of Elections (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 351 , 357 , quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co. (1950), 339 U.S. 306 , 314 , 94 L.Ed. 865 , 873 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Schroeder v. City of New York
green
2 sentences1997Further, “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in- any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” (Citations omitted.) Schroeder v. City of New York (1962) 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279, 282 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255, 258-259 . 1997Further, “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in- any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” (Citations omitted.) Schroeder v. City of New York (1962) 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279, 282 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255, 258-259 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Roller v. Holly
green
1 sentence1987Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 ; Priest v. Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 ; Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Priest v. Trustees of Town of Las Vegas
green
1 sentence1987Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 ; Priest v. Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 ; Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Grannis v. Ordean
green
1 sentence1987Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 ; Priest v. Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 ; Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Milliken v. Meyer
green
1 sentence1987Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 ; Priest v. Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 ; Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.