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.
9 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Polikoff v. Adamgreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Polikoff v. Adam, 67 Ohio St.3d 100, 107 (1993) (as then largely incorporated into statute: "The underlying action can be distinguished from a special proceeding in that it provides for an adversarial hearing on the issues of fact and law which arise from the pleadings and which will result in a judgment for the prevailing party. * * * * [W]e determine that orders that are entered in actions that were recognized at common law or in equity and were not specially created by statute are not orders entered in special proceedings pursuant to R.C. 2505.02. 2001See Polikoff, 67 Ohio St.3d at 107 , 616 N.E.2d at 218 : “[Plaintiffs] sought redress of an alleged wrong by filing a lawsuit in the court of common pleas. * * * The underlying action can be distinguished from a special proceeding in that it provides for an adversarial hearing on the issues of fact and law which arise from the pleadings and which will result in a judgment for the prevailing party.” See, also, Walters, 78 Ohio St.3d at 122 , 676 N.E.2d at 893: “In the case sub judice, the underlying action was an ordinary civil action, seeking damages. | 3 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walters v. Enrichment Center of Wishing Well, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001See Polikoff, 67 Ohio St.3d at 107 , 616 N.E.2d at 218 : “[Plaintiffs] sought redress of an alleged wrong by filing a lawsuit in the court of common pleas. * * * The underlying action can be distinguished from a special proceeding in that it provides for an adversarial hearing on the issues of fact and law which arise from the pleadings and which will result in a judgment for the prevailing party.” See, also, Walters, 78 Ohio St.3d at 122 , 676 N.E.2d at 893: “In the case sub judice, the underlying action was an ordinary civil action, seeking damages. 2001See Polikoff, 67 Ohio St.3d at 107 , 616 N.E.2d at 218 : “[Plaintiffs] sought redress of an alleged wrong by filing a lawsuit in the court of common pleas. * * * The underlying action can be distinguished from a special proceeding in that it provides for an adversarial hearing on the issues of fact and law which arise from the pleadings and which will result in a judgment for the prevailing party.” See, also, Walters, 78 Ohio St.3d at 122 , 676 N.E.2d at 893: “In the case sub judice, the underlying action was an ordinary civil action, seeking damages. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Kitchen
green
1 sentence2001State v. Kitchen (1998), 128 Ohio App.3d 335 , 341 ; R.C. 2705.03 ; R.C. 2705.05 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Lilliock
green
1 sentence2000State v. Lilliock (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 23 , 26-28 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Knuckles
green
1 sentence1999State v. Knuckles , 65 Ohio St.3d at 496 , fn. 1. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
In Matter of Lands
green
2 sentences1998See R.C. 2705.03; In re Lands, Lots or Parts of Lots Omitted from Foreclosure Proceedings-1911 (1946), 146 Ohio St. 589, 595 , 33 O.O. 80, 82-83 , 67 N.E.2d 433, 437 . 1998See R.C. 2705.03; In re Lands, Lots or Parts of Lots Omitted from Foreclosure Proceedings-1911 (1946), 146 Ohio St. 589, 595 , 33 O.O. 80, 82-83 , 67 N.E.2d 433, 437 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In re Order Requiring Fingerprinting of a Juvenile
green
2 sentences1989Holmes, supra. Appellants’ case is also inapposite to the holding in In re Order Requiring Fingerprinting of a Juvenile (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 124 , 537 N.E.2d 1286 , in which appellants’ counsel participated. 1989Holmes, supra. Appellants’ case is also inapposite to the holding in In re Order Requiring Fingerprinting of a Juvenile (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 124 , 537 N.E.2d 1286 , in which appellants’ counsel participated. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.