9 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holeski v. Lawrencegreen2 sentences2013Holeski v. Lawrence, 85 Ohio App.3d 824, 828 (11th Dist.1993). 2013Holeski v. Lawrence, 85 Ohio App.3d 824, 828 (11th Dist.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Fayette Volunteer Fire Department No. 2, Inc. v. Board of Township Trusteesgreen2 sentences2013Trustees, 87 Ohio App.3d 51, 54 (4th Dist.1993). {¶18} This court has held that the plaintiff’s burden of proof for seeking an injunction in the context of an alleged Sunshine Law violation is clear and convincing evidence. 2013Trustees, 87 Ohio App.3d 51, 54 (4th Dist.1993). {¶18} This court has held that the plaintiff’s burden of proof for seeking an injunction in the context of an alleged Sunshine Law violation is clear and convincing evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Doran v. Northmont Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2010See also Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Edn., 153 Ohio App.3d 499 , 2003-Ohio-4084 , 794 N.E.2d 760, ¶ 20 (statutory right to bring an alleged Sunshine Law violation pursuant to R.C. 121.22(I)(1)); State ex rel. 2010See also Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Edn., 153 Ohio App.3d 499 , 2003-Ohio-4084 , 794 N.E.2d 760, ¶ 20 (statutory right to bring an alleged Sunshine Law violation pursuant to R.C. 121.22(I)(1)); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Unirea Societatilor Romane Carpatina v. Subagreen1 sentence2007See, also, Unirea Societatilor Romane Carpatina of Cleveland v. Suba (1998), 130 Ohio App.3d 538 , 541 . {¶ 17} Newell's alleged Sunshine Law violation claim is not "separate and discrete" from her dismissed quo warranto action. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Local Number 93, International Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland
green
2 sentences2009Assn of Firefighters, AFL-CIO C.L.C. v. City of Cleveland , 478 U.S. 501 , 106 S.Ct. 3063 . {¶ 102} "We further find that the Settlement Agreement/Consent Judgment did not dispose of Appellant Charton's independent counterclaims of nuisance (against Republic) or Sunshine Law violation (against Pike Township), which remain pending. 2009Assn of Firefighters, AFL-CIO C.L.C. v. City of Cleveland , 478 U.S. 501 , 106 S.Ct. 3063 . {¶ 102} "We further find that the Settlement Agreement/Consent Judgment did not dispose of Appellant Charton's independent counterclaims of nuisance (against Republic) or Sunshine Law violation (against Pike Township), which remain pending. | 2 | 2007–2009 |
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories
green
2 sentences2012Furthermore, “ ‘[i]t is the appellant's duty to transmit the [record] to the court of appeals. * * * This duty falls to the appellant because the appellant has the burden of establishing error in the trial court.’ ” Bailey at ¶ 57; citing Dalton at ¶ 2; citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980) (internal citations omitted). {¶14} As Appellant has not provided us with the record from the 2009 case, we have nothing to review in regards to the statute of limitations on the Sunshine Law issue. 2012Furthermore, “ ‘[i]t is the appellant's duty to transmit the [record] to the court of appeals. * * * This duty falls to the appellant because the appellant has the burden of establishing error in the trial court.’ ” Bailey at ¶ 57; citing Dalton at ¶ 2; citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980) (internal citations omitted). {¶14} As Appellant has not provided us with the record from the 2009 case, we have nothing to review in regards to the statute of limitations on the Sunshine Law issue. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Yazdani-Isfehani v. Yazdani-Isfehani
green
2 sentences2007Instead, they maintain that Newell's allegation of a Sunshine Law violation is one reason Newell provides to support her quo warranto cause of action for Reed's removal. {¶ 12} "The existence of the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law[.]" Yazdani-lsfehani v. Yazdani-lsfehani , 170 Ohio App.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-7105 , ¶ 20 . 2007Instead, they maintain that Newell's allegation of a Sunshine Law violation is one reason Newell provides to support her quo warranto cause of action for Reed's removal. {¶ 12} "The existence of the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law[.]" Yazdani-lsfehani v. Yazdani-lsfehani , 170 Ohio App.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-7105 , ¶ 20 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Peterson v. Teodosio
green
2 sentences2004For this reason, the Court agrees * * * that plaintiff has no legal capacity to challenge the defendant, ESC’s action(s) relative to the creation of the Peebles Local School District.” The board of education now appeals and raises the following assignment of error: “The trial court erred to the prejudice of Adams County in granting Defendant/Appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.” {¶ 6} A Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings presents only questions of law. 1 Peterson v. Teodosio (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 166 , 63 *257 O.O.2d 262, 297 N.E.2d 113 . 2004For this reason, the Court agrees * * * that plaintiff has no legal capacity to challenge the defendant, ESC’s action(s) relative to the creation of the Peebles Local School District.” The board of education now appeals and raises the following assignment of error: “The trial court erred to the prejudice of Adams County in granting Defendant/Appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.” {¶ 6} A Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings presents only questions of law. 1 Peterson v. Teodosio (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 166 , 63 *257 O.O.2d 262, 297 N.E.2d 113 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Ohio Valley Mall Co. v. Wray
neutral
2 sentences1999Wray, 104 Ohio App.3d at 634-635 , 662 N.E.2d at 1110-1112 . 1999Wray, 104 Ohio App.3d at 634-635 , 662 N.E.2d at 1110-1112 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Barnes
green
2 sentences1993Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Barnes (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 165, 166 , 527 N.E.2d 807, 809 . 1993Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Barnes (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 165, 166 , 527 N.E.2d 807, 809 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.