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 1989–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Estate of Browngreen2 sentences1989The court in Brown, supra, 137 Ariz. at 313, 670 P.2d at 418, noted: “ * * * [W]here the personal representative has a conflict of interest with the estate so that with respect to some claim of the personal representative the estate is virtually unrepresented, it is preferable to allow the court to consider whether those who in fact confer a benefit on the common fund should recover fees expended in the effort to do so.” 2 It must be noted, however, that an attorney applying for such payment must present himself before the equity court “with clean hands.” The court in In re Estate of Chrisman 1989The court in Brown, supra, 137 Ariz. at 313, 670 P.2d at 418, noted: “ * * * [W]here the personal representative has a conflict of interest with the estate so that with respect to some claim of the personal representative the estate is virtually unrepresented, it is preferable to allow the court to consider whether those who in fact confer a benefit on the common fund should recover fees expended in the effort to do so.” 2 It must be noted, however, that an attorney applying for such payment must present himself before the equity court “with clean hands.” The court in In re Estate of Chrisman | 1 | 1 |
Coates v. Coatesgreen2 sentences1989The court in Brown, supra, 137 Ariz. at 313, 670 P.2d at 418, noted: “ * * * [W]here the personal representative has a conflict of interest with the estate so that with respect to some claim of the personal representative the estate is virtually unrepresented, it is preferable to allow the court to consider whether those who in fact confer a benefit on the common fund should recover fees expended in the effort to do so.” 2 It must be noted, however, that an attorney applying for such payment must present himself before the equity court “with clean hands.” The court in In re Estate of Chrisman 1989The court in Brown, supra, 137 Ariz. at 313, 670 P.2d at 418, noted: “ * * * [W]here the personal representative has a conflict of interest with the estate so that with respect to some claim of the personal representative the estate is virtually unrepresented, it is preferable to allow the court to consider whether those who in fact confer a benefit on the common fund should recover fees expended in the effort to do so.” 2 It must be noted, however, that an attorney applying for such payment must present himself before the equity court “with clean hands.” The court in In re Estate of Chrisman | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bruton v. United States
green
2 sentences2012The following day, the trial court granted Ms. Hickey’s motion to appear pro hac vice. {¶8} During an October 8, 2010 status conference, the trial court ordered the scheduling of separate trial dates for each defendant to avoid constitutional violations under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).3 (10/8/10 Hrg. 2012The following day, the trial court granted Ms. Hickey’s motion to appear pro hac vice. {¶8} During an October 8, 2010 status conference, the trial court ordered the scheduling of separate trial dates for each defendant to avoid constitutional violations under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).3 (10/8/10 Hrg. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Ohio State Board of Pharmacy v. Frantz
green
2 sentences1993At the time of Murray’s hearing, this section provided, in relevant part: “For the purpose of conducting any adjudication hearing required by sections 119.01 to 119.13 of the Revised Code, the agency may require the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, and papers as it desires, and it may take the depositions of witnesses residing within or without the state in the same manner as is prescribed by law for the taking of depositions in civil actions in the court of common pleas, and for that purpose the agency may, and upon the request of any party receiving not 1993At the time of Murray’s hearing, this section provided, in relevant part: “For the purpose of conducting any adjudication hearing required by sections 119.01 to 119.13 of the Revised Code, the agency may require the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, and papers as it desires, and it may take the depositions of witnesses residing within or without the state in the same manner as is prescribed by law for the taking of depositions in civil actions in the court of common pleas, and for that purpose the agency may, and upon the request of any party receiving not | 2 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Martin
green
1 sentence2025A case should not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence -11- except “ ‘in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.’ ” Id., quoting Martin at 175 . {¶ 28} Murray argues that the State failed to carry its burden of disproving any element of Murray’s defense of another defense. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Otten
green
1 sentence2008No. 96CA006462 (emphasis omitted), this Court explained that sufficient evidence "is required to take a case to the jury[.] * * * Thus, a determination that [a] conviction is supported by the weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency." Accordingly, we address Murray's challenge to the weight of the evidence first, as it is dispositive of his claim of sufficiency. {¶ 17} To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court: *Page 6 "[M]ust review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Thompkins
red
1 sentence2008Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
City of Dayton v. Rogers
green
1 sentence2005Thus, the trial court erred by overruling Murray's motion for acquittal on the aggravated burglary charge. {¶ 96} This matter should be remanded to the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal on the aggravated burglary charge. 3 Dayton v. Rodgers (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 162 , 163 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Burr v. Board of County Commissioners
green
1 sentence2005Bd. of Commrs. (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 69 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Mussivand v. David
green
1 sentence2005There is competent, credible evidence in the record to support those findings. {¶ 25} As to Murray's claim for fraud, it is well-established that the elements necessary to support a claim of fraud are: "`(a) a representation or, where there is a duty to disclose, concealment of a fact, (b) which is material to the transaction at hand, (c) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity, or with such utter disregard and recklessness as to whether it is true or false that knowledge may be inferred, (d) with the intent of misleading another into relying on it, (e) justifiable reliance upon the repres | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hannebaum v. Estate of Chrisman
green
2 sentences1989The court in Brown, supra, 137 Ariz. at 313, 670 P.2d at 418, noted: “ * * * [W]here the personal representative has a conflict of interest with the estate so that with respect to some claim of the personal representative the estate is virtually unrepresented, it is preferable to allow the court to consider whether those who in fact confer a benefit on the common fund should recover fees expended in the effort to do so.” 2 It must be noted, however, that an attorney applying for such payment must present himself before the equity court “with clean hands.” The court in In re Estate of Chrisman 1989The court in Brown, supra, 137 Ariz. at 313, 670 P.2d at 418, noted: “ * * * [W]here the personal representative has a conflict of interest with the estate so that with respect to some claim of the personal representative the estate is virtually unrepresented, it is preferable to allow the court to consider whether those who in fact confer a benefit on the common fund should recover fees expended in the effort to do so.” 2 It must be noted, however, that an attorney applying for such payment must present himself before the equity court “with clean hands.” The court in In re Estate of Chrisman | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.