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 1995–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. Children's Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2020Accord Turner v. Children’s Hosp., Inc., 76 Ohio App.3d 541, 548 , 602 N.E.2d 423 (10th Dist.1991), citing Ault, supra (no presumption of malpractice from the mere fact of injury). {¶53} While the court does not know the precise cause of Tim Gysegem’s recurring infections, the evidence does not establish that OSUWMC, through Dr. Eiferman, failed to meet the standard of care in either the laparoscopic appendectomy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy. 2020Accord Turner v. Children’s Hosp., Inc., 76 Ohio App.3d 541, 548 , 602 N.E.2d 423 (10th Dist.1991), citing Ault, supra (no presumption of malpractice from the mere fact of injury). {¶53} While the court does not know the precise cause of Tim Gysegem’s recurring infections, the evidence does not establish that OSUWMC, through Dr. Eiferman, failed to meet the standard of care in either the laparoscopic appendectomy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Gelesh v. State Medical Boardgreen2 sentences2013Bd. of Ohio, 172 Ohio App.3d 365 , 2007-Ohio-3328, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.). “[T]wo criteria must be met in order for a justiciable issue to exist: 1) plaintiff must have a right or duty owing by the defendant; and 2) the denial of plaintiff’s right or duty by defendant must be a present 3 Additionally, even if plaintiff had not dismissed his fraud claim, the court concludes that this claim is also barred by the two-year statute of limitations for the same reasons. 2013Bd. of Ohio, 172 Ohio App.3d 365 , 2007-Ohio-3328, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.). “[T]wo criteria must be met in order for a justiciable issue to exist: 1) plaintiff must have a right or duty owing by the defendant; and 2) the denial of plaintiff’s right or duty by defendant must be a present 3 Additionally, even if plaintiff had not dismissed his fraud claim, the court concludes that this claim is also barred by the two-year statute of limitations for the same reasons. | 1 | 1 |
Grava v. Parkman Townshipgreen2 sentences2012See Grava v. Parkman (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 381 , 653 N.E.2d 226 ("The doctrine of res judicata involves both claim preclusion (historically called estoppel by judgment in Ohio) and issue preclusion (traditionally known as collateral estoppel).") In keeping with Civ.R. 8(F)'s mandate that "[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice," this court concludes that the defense was not waived. {¶14} Moving on to Appellants' second argument, they are correct that a motion to dismiss is generally not the proper vehicle in which to raise res judicata. 2012See Grava v. Parkman (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 381 , 653 N.E.2d 226 ("The doctrine of res judicata involves both claim preclusion (historically called estoppel by judgment in Ohio) and issue preclusion (traditionally known as collateral estoppel).") In keeping with Civ.R. 8(F)'s mandate that "[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice," this court concludes that the defense was not waived. {¶14} Moving on to Appellants' second argument, they are correct that a motion to dismiss is generally not the proper vehicle in which to raise res judicata. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stone v. House of Day Funeral Service, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Id. {¶54} In Law Office of Natalie F. Grubb v. Bolan, 11th Dist. 2002Id. {¶ 7} Before ruling on a motion for sanctions, however, "a trial court must conduct a hearing * * * and may not rely exclusively on what has or has not been submitted with the motion itself." Cic v. Nozik (July 20, 2001), 11th Dist. | 2 | 2002–2013 |
Penson v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2019No brief has been filed. {¶ 11} As this Court has previously noted: An appellate court, upon the filing of an Anders brief, has a duty to determine, “after a full examination of the proceedings,” whether the appeal is, in fact, “wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ; Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). 2019No brief has been filed. {¶ 11} As this Court has previously noted: An appellate court, upon the filing of an Anders brief, has a duty to determine, “after a full examination of the proceedings,” whether the appeal is, in fact, “wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ; Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2019No brief has been filed. {¶ 11} As this Court has previously noted: An appellate court, upon the filing of an Anders brief, has a duty to determine, “after a full examination of the proceedings,” whether the appeal is, in fact, “wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ; Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). 2019No brief has been filed. {¶ 11} As this Court has previously noted: An appellate court, upon the filing of an Anders brief, has a duty to determine, “after a full examination of the proceedings,” whether the appeal is, in fact, “wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ; Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kurzner v. Sanders
green
1 sentence2007Taking the instruction as a whole, this Court concludes that the instruction clearly and accurately states the applicable law. {¶ 10} Appellant relies on Kurzner v. Sanders (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 674 , as authority that an instruction on a doctor's use of "judgment" constitutes reversible error. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Schmitt
green
2 sentences2005The Supplemental Brief of Defendant cites certain issues that reflect on the propriety of the test administration and based upon that analysis, the Court concludes that the test results are not admissible for the probable cause issue and pursuant to State v. Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 , 801 N.E.2d 446 (2004) at trial. 2005The Supplemental Brief of Defendant cites certain issues that reflect on the propriety of the test administration and based upon that analysis, the Court concludes that the test results are not admissible for the probable cause issue and pursuant to State v. Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 , 801 N.E.2d 446 (2004) at trial. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences1995Crim.R. 52(A); Williams, supra, 4 Ohio St.3d 53, 4 OBR 144, 446 N.E.2d 444 . 1995Crim.R. 52(A); Williams, supra, 4 Ohio St.3d 53, 4 OBR 144, 446 N.E.2d 444 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.