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 2000–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. Bishopgreen1 sentence2026Robinson v. Bishop, 2024-Ohio-4828, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.); Nkurunziza v. Nyamusevya, 2011-Ohio-6133 , ¶ 13 (10th Dist.). “ ‘Thus, the doctrine of res judicata precludes a party who has had his day in court from seeking a second chance to litigate an issue that he could have raised earlier.’ ” Nkurunziza at ¶ 13 , quoting In re Estate of Barnett-Clardy, 2008-Ohio-6126, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.). {¶ 32} Because Craig could have raised the double-dip argument in his prior appeal, the doctrine of res judicata bars him from raising it in this appeal. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Barnett-Clardy, 08ap-386 (11-25-2008)green1 sentence2026Robinson v. Bishop, 2024-Ohio-4828, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.); Nkurunziza v. Nyamusevya, 2011-Ohio-6133 , ¶ 13 (10th Dist.). “ ‘Thus, the doctrine of res judicata precludes a party who has had his day in court from seeking a second chance to litigate an issue that he could have raised earlier.’ ” Nkurunziza at ¶ 13 , quoting In re Estate of Barnett-Clardy, 2008-Ohio-6126, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.). {¶ 32} Because Craig could have raised the double-dip argument in his prior appeal, the doctrine of res judicata bars him from raising it in this appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Myers, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2005)green1 sentence2018No. 05AP-228, 2005-Ohio-5998, ¶ 9 ("The doctrine of res judicata bars a litigant from re-litigating an issue that was or could have been raised in an earlier proceeding between the same parties."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dun-Rite Constr., Inc. v. Hoover Land Co.
neutral
2 sentences2017Summit No. 25731, 2011-Ohio-4769, ¶ 8 . “[L]ack of standing is an issue that is cognizable on appeal, and therefore it cannot be used to collaterally attack a judgment.” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 , 2014-Ohio-4275 , ¶ 25. {¶14} In her Civ.R. 60(B) motion, Ms. Hull argued as a meritorious defense that the Bank lacked standing at the time it filed the foreclosure action. 2012No. 25731, 2011-Ohio-4769, ¶ 8 . | 3 | 2011–2017 |
State v. Perry
green
2 sentences2023Id. at ¶ 19, citing State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 178-179 , 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus. 2023Id. at ¶ 19, citing State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 178-179 , 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus. | 2 | 2000–2023 |
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2017Summit No. 25731, 2011-Ohio-4769, ¶ 8 . “[L]ack of standing is an issue that is cognizable on appeal, and therefore it cannot be used to collaterally attack a judgment.” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 , 2014-Ohio-4275 , ¶ 25. {¶14} In her Civ.R. 60(B) motion, Ms. Hull argued as a meritorious defense that the Bank lacked standing at the time it filed the foreclosure action. 2017Summit No. 25731, 2011-Ohio-4769, ¶ 8 . “[L]ack of standing is an issue that is cognizable on appeal, and therefore it cannot be used to collaterally attack a judgment.” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 , 2014-Ohio-4275 , ¶ 25. {¶14} In her Civ.R. 60(B) motion, Ms. Hull argued as a meritorious defense that the Bank lacked standing at the time it filed the foreclosure action. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In re M.R.L.
green
1 sentence2014Summit No. 25618, 2011-Ohio-4997, ¶ 10 , quoting Dun-Rite Constr., Inc. v. Hoover Land Co., 9th Dist. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Saxon
green
1 sentence2008State v. Saxon , 109 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2006-Ohio-1245 , at ¶ 18 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.