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 1 courts 2007–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ault v. Jaskogreen1 sentence2026The purpose of the discovery rule is to limit the “‘unconscionable result to innocent victims who by exercising even the highest degree of care could not have discovered the cited wrong.’” Barr v. Lauer, 2009-Ohio-5563 , ¶ 28, quoting Ault v. Jasko, 70 Ohio St.3d 114, 115-116 (1994). {¶ 20} The City maintains that because R.C. 2744.04(A) “only provides one limited circumstance” when the statute of limitations may be tolled — pursuant to R.C. 2305.16 (tolls the statute of limitations when the plaintiff is a minor or a person of unsound mind at the time of the injury) — the discovery rule does n | 1 | 1 |
Meehan v. Mardisgreen1 sentence2025Meehan v. Mardis, 2019-Ohio-4075, ¶ 29 (1st Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Lakewood v. Papadelis
green
2 sentences2024The rule serves “‘to prevent surprise and the secreting of evidence favorable to one party.’” State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio-966 , 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 19 , quoting Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1, 3 , 511 N.E.2d 1138 (1987). 2019The purpose of the discovery rule is ‘to provide all parties in a criminal case with the information necessary for a full and fair adjudication of the facts, to protect the integrity of the judicial system and the rights of defendants, and to protect the well-being of witnesses, victims, and society at large.’” Id. at ¶ 16, quoting Crim.R. 16(A). {¶10} Crim.R. 16(L)(1) states that, “[i]f at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or with an 4 order issued pursuant to this rule, the court may orde | 4 | 2017–2024 |
State v. Darmond
green
2 sentences2021The purpose of the discovery rule is to prevent surprise and the secreting of evidence favorable to one party.” (Internal citations omitted.) State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio- 966, 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 19 . {¶10} When a party commits a discovery violation, the trial court may impose any sanction “it deems just under the circumstances.” Crim.R. 16(L)(1). 2021The purpose of the discovery rule is to prevent surprise and the secreting of evidence favorable to one party.” (Internal citations omitted.) State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio- 966, 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 19 . {¶10} When a party commits a discovery violation, the trial court may impose any sanction “it deems just under the circumstances.” Crim.R. 16(L)(1). | 4 | 2019–2024 |
State v. Simmons
green
1 sentence2021For example, “the court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection, grant a continuance, or prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed[.]” Id. {¶11} However, a court may impose sanctions “only after inquiring into the circumstances surrounding the violation.” State v. Simmons, 2014-Ohio-3695 , 19 N.E.3d 517 , ¶ 42 (1st Dist.), citing Darmond at ¶ 35 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Franklin
green
2 sentences2017Summit No. 25518, 2011-Ohio-2886 , 2011 WL 2420197 , ¶ 7, quoting State v. Franklin , 62 Ohio St.3d 118 , 127, 580 N.E.2d 1 (1991). {¶ 18} When faced with a discovery rule violation, a trial court must inquire into the circumstances giving rise to the violation and impose the least severe sanction consistent with the purpose of the discovery rule. 2017Summit No. 25518, 2011-Ohio-2886 , 2011 WL 2420197 , ¶ 7, quoting State v. Franklin , 62 Ohio St.3d 118 , 127, 580 N.E.2d 1 (1991). {¶ 18} When faced with a discovery rule violation, a trial court must inquire into the circumstances giving rise to the violation and impose the least severe sanction consistent with the purpose of the discovery rule. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence2017Summit No. 25518, 2011-Ohio-2886 , 2011 WL 2420197 , ¶ 7, quoting State v. Franklin , 62 Ohio St.3d 118 , 127, 580 N.E.2d 1 (1991). {¶ 18} When faced with a discovery rule violation, a trial court must inquire into the circumstances giving rise to the violation and impose the least severe sanction consistent with the purpose of the discovery rule. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Moore
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 68 ; see also State v. Pagan, 8th Dist. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Oliver v. Kaiser Community Health Foundation
green
1 sentence2007By focusing on discovery as the element which triggers the statute of limitations, the discovery rule gives those injured adequate time to seek relief on the merits without undue prejudice to * * * defendants." Id. at 116 citing Oliver v. Kaiser Community Health Found. (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 111 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ault v. Jasko
green
1 sentence2007By focusing on discovery as the element which triggers the statute of limitations, the discovery rule gives those injured adequate time to seek relief on the merits without undue prejudice to * * * defendants." Id. at 116 citing Oliver v. Kaiser Community Health Found. (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 111 . | 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.