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 2007–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fortner v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2024The justiciability requirement is set forth in the Ohio Constitution only in Article IV, Section 4(B), and this court has explained that “justiciable matters” are limited to “‘actual controversies between parties legitimately affected by specific facts,’” Barclays Bank at ¶ 21, quoting Fortner, 22 Ohio St.2d at 14. 2024The justiciability requirement is set forth in the Ohio Constitution only in Article IV, Section 4(B), and this court has explained that “justiciable matters” are limited to “‘actual controversies between parties legitimately affected by specific facts,’ ” Barclays Bank at ¶ 21, quoting Fortner, 22 Ohio St.2d at 14 . | 2 | 4 |
National Park Hospitality Association v. Department of the Interiorgreen2 sentences2022Park Hospitality Assn. v. Dept. of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 807 , 123 S.Ct. 2026 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2003), and that it is a threshold consideration for a court, Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Prods. 2015Park Hospitality Assn. v. Dept. of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 807-08 (2003), quoting Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967) ("Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine designed 'to prevent the courts, through 6 To the extent that appellant suggests R.C. 2721.03, the legislative source of a cause of action for declaratory relief, may also confer standing upon a plaintiff independently from other sources of standing, we note that this is an unsettled issue but one not dispositive under the facts of this case. | 1 | 2 |
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardnerred1 sentence2015Park Hospitality Assn. v. Dept. of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 807-08 (2003), quoting Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967) ("Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine designed 'to prevent the courts, through 6 To the extent that appellant suggests R.C. 2721.03, the legislative source of a cause of action for declaratory relief, may also confer standing upon a plaintiff independently from other sources of standing, we note that this is an unsettled issue but one not dispositive under the facts of this case. | 1 | 1 |
Ohio Trucking Assn. v. Charlesgreen2 sentences2014See Ohio Trucking Assn. v. Charles, 134 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2012-Ohio-5679 , 983 N.E.2d 1262 , quoting State ex rel. 2014See Ohio Trucking Assn. v. Charles, 134 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2012-Ohio-5679 , 983 N.E.2d 1262 , quoting State ex rel. | 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 Bicknell
green
2 sentences2024Based on these two examples, it is at least arguable that the State has an interest in applications seeking to correct a birth certificate and that this interest would satisfy the justiciability requirement in Article IV, Section 4(B) of the Ohio Constitution. {¶ 20} Further supporting the conclusion that the lower courts have jurisdiction to decide and review Adelaide’s application to correct the sex marker on her birth certificate is this court’s decision in In re Bicknell, 2002-Ohio-3615. 2024Based on these two examples, it is at least arguable that the State has an interest in applications seeking to correct a birth certificate and that this interest would satisfy the justiciability requirement in Article IV, Section 4(B) of the Ohio Constitution. {¶ 20} Further supporting the conclusion that the lower courts have jurisdiction to decide and review Adelaide’s application to correct the sex marker on her birth certificate is this court’s decision in In re Bicknell, 2002-Ohio-3615 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Braggs
green
2 sentences2025In support, the county prosecutor cited this court’s decision in State v. Braggs, 2013-Ohio-3364 (1st Dist.), where we held that “because of the justiciability requirement, a declaratory judgment action does not provide a means for determining whether previously-adjudicated rights were properly decided.” Id. at ¶ 7. 2025In support, the county prosecutor cited this court’s decision in State v. Braggs, 2013-Ohio-3364 (1st Dist.), where we held that “because of the justiciability requirement, a declaratory judgment action does not provide a means for determining whether previously-adjudicated rights were properly decided.” Id. at ¶ 7. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State ex rel. Barclays Bank PLC v. Court of Common Pleas
green
1 sentence2022This justiciability requirement involves deciding “‘actual controversies between parties legitimately affected by specific facts and render[ing] judgments which can be carried into effect.’” Id., quoting Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14 (1970). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Berndt
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 4 , 29 OBR 173, 504 N.E.2d 712 . {¶ 16} The dissenting opinion in Bemdt suggested that a conviction of OMVI may impose sufficient collateral disabilities to meet the Wilson test. 2007Id. at 4 , 29 OBR 173, 504 N.E.2d 712 . {¶ 16} The dissenting opinion in Bemdt suggested that a conviction of OMVI may impose sufficient collateral disabilities to meet the Wilson test. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.