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.
62 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gwynnegreen2 sentences2024Although neither party explicitly argued that this “first-publication rule” is incorrect, this court is “certainly not limited to the analyses presented by the parties or the analysis of the lower court in resolving an issue before the court, as this court must apply correct legal principles to resolve legal issues,” State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 33 (Fischer, J., concurring in judgment only); see also Warner Chappell Music, 601 U.S. at __, 144 S.Ct. at 1141 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting) (“Nothing requires us to play along with these particular parties and expound on the details of a rule of l 2024Although neither party explicitly argued that this “first-publication rule” is incorrect, this court is “certainly not limited to the analyses presented by the parties or the analysis of the lower court in resolving an issue before the court, as this court must apply correct legal principles to resolve legal issues,” State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851 , ¶ 33 (Fischer, J., concurring in judgment only); see also Warner Chappell Music, 601 U.S. at __, 144 S.Ct. at 1141 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting) (“Nothing requires us to play along with these particular parties and expound on the details of a rule of | 2 | 2 |
Boyd v. Moneygreen2 sentences2011See also, Boyd v. Money, 82 Ohio St.3d 388 , wherein the Supreme Court held, “Habeas corpus petitioner's failure to attach pertinent commitment papers to his petition rendered the petition fatally defective, and petitioner's subsequent attachment of commitment papers to his post-judgment motion did not cure the defect.” R.C. § 2725.04(D). {4} We find failure to include all pertinent entries has made a complete understanding of the Petition impossible. {5} We further note a “Court of Appeals [is] required to dismiss [a] petition for habeas corpus sua sponte, where defendant failed to verify the 2011See also, Boyd v. Money, 82 Ohio St.3d 388 , wherein the Supreme Court held, “Habeas corpus petitioner's failure to attach pertinent commitment papers to his petition rendered petition fatally defective, and petitioner's subsequent attachment of commitment papers to his post-judgment motion did not cure the defect.” R.C. § 2725.04(D). {4} We find failure to include all pertinent entries has made a complete understanding of the Petition impossible. {5} We further note a “Court of Appeals [is] required to dismiss [a] petition for habeas corpus sua sponte, where defendant failed to verify the pet | 2 | 2 |
State v. Addison, Unpublished Decision (1-17-2007)green2 sentences2007See, also, State v. Addison , supra. Additionally, the petitioner failed to support his complaint with an affidavit "specifying the details of the claim" as required by Local Rule 45(B)(1)(a). 2007See, also, State v. Addison , supra. Additionally, the petitioner failed to support his complaint with an affidavit "specifying the details of the claim" as required by Local Rule 45(B)(1)(a). | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Hopson v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleasgreen2 sentences2014Court of Common Pleas, 135 Ohio St.3d 456 , 2013-Ohio-1911 , 989 N.E.2d 49, ¶ 2 (reaffirming finding that “the Eighth District’s reading of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1) is reasonable and that it may dismiss a writ case that fails to comply with the requirement that an affidavit ‘specify[ ] the details of the claim.’”); Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Dept., 75 Ohio St.3d 508 , 664 N.E.2d 521 (1996) (complaint for mandamus must be dismissed where the complaint was not brought in the name of the state on relation of the relator, the respondent objects, and the relator fails to 2014Court of Common Pleas, 135 Ohio St.3d 456 , 2013-Ohio-1911 , 989 N.E.2d 49, ¶ 2 (reaffirming finding that “the Eighth District’s reading of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1) is reasonable and that it may dismiss a writ case that fails to comply with the requirement that an affidavit ‘specify[ ] the details of the claim.’”); Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Dept., 75 Ohio St.3d 508 , 664 N.E.2d 521 (1996) (complaint for mandamus must be dismissed where the complaint was not brought in the name of the state on relation of the relator, the respondent objects, and the relator fails to | 1 | 2 |
Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealygreen1 sentence2024Although neither party explicitly argues that this “first-publication rule” is incorrect, this court is “certainly not limited to the analyses presented by the parties or the analysis of the lower court in resolving an issue before the court, as this court must apply correct legal principles to resolve legal issues,” State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 33 (Fischer, J., concurring in judgment only); see also Warner Chappell Music, 601 U.S. at 376 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting) (“Nothing requires us to play along with these particular parties and expound on the details of a rule of law that they may a | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Boardwalk Shopping Center, Inc. v. Court of Appealsgreen2 sentences2013Boardwalk Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga Cty., 56 Ohio St.3d 33, 35 , 564 N.E.2d 86 (1990) (“It is firmly established that the writ of mandamus will not issue ‘* * * where the relator has or had available a clear, plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.’”). {¶10} Finally, relator has not disputed respondent’s alternative reason for seeking dismissal of this action, which is that he failed to provide an affidavit specifying the details of his claim as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). 2013Boardwalk Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga Cty., 56 Ohio St.3d 33, 35 , 564 N.E.2d 86 (1990) (“It is firmly established that the writ of mandamus will not issue ‘* * * where the relator has or had available a clear, plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.’”). {¶10} Finally, relator has not disputed respondent’s alternative reason for seeking dismissal of this action, which is that he failed to provide an affidavit specifying the details of his claim as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). | 1 | 1 |
| Morris v. Bureau of Sentence Comput., Unpublished Decision (3-23-2007)green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. Russo, Unpublished Decision (8-29-2006)
green
2 sentences2008Turner v. Russo , Cuyahoga App. No. 87852, 2006-Ohio-4490 , at ¶ 8 . {¶ 5} Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted. 2007Turner v. Russo , Cuyahoga App. No. 87852, 2006-Ohio-4490 ; Jarrett v. Cuyahoga Cty. | 7 | 2007–2008 |
State ex rel. Alford v. Winters
green
2 sentences2008Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. , 82 Ohio St.3d 421 , 1998-Ohio-218 , 696 N.E.2d 594 ; Alford v. Winters , 80 Ohio St.3d 285 , 1997-Ohio-117 , 685 N.E.2d 1242 . *Page 4 {¶ 4} Finally, Alexander has failed to comply Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), which mandates that the complaint for a writ of mandamus be supported by a sworn affidavit that specifies the details of his claim. 2008Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. , 82 Ohio St.3d 421 , 1998-Ohio-218 , 696 N.E.2d 594 ; Alford v. Winters , 80 Ohio St.3d 285 , 1997-Ohio-117 , 685 N.E.2d 1242 . *Page 4 {¶ 4} Finally, Alexander has failed to comply Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), which mandates that the complaint for a writ of mandamus be supported by a sworn affidavit that specifies the details of his claim. | 5 | 2002–2008 |
State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
green
2 sentences2014Court of Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 176 , 724 N.E.2d 420 (2000); and Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22 , 2011-Ohio-4608 , 955 N.E.2d 378 . {¶5} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). 2014Court of Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 176 , 724 N.E.2d 420 (2000); and Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22 , 2011-Ohio-4608 , 955 N.E.2d 378 . {¶5} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). | 4 | 2004–2014 |
Hazel v. Knab
green
2 sentences2014Court of Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 176 , 724 N.E.2d 420 (2000); and Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22 , 2011-Ohio-4608 , 955 N.E.2d 378 . {¶5} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). 2014Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492 , 2006-Ohio-1507 , 844 N.E.2d 842 ; and Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22 , 2011-Ohio-4608 , 955 N.E.2d 378 . {¶4} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). | 4 | 2011–2014 |
State ex rel. Bailey v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences2004Myles v. Wyatt (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 191 , 580 N.E.2d 1080 . {¶ 3} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit "specifying the details of the claim" as required by Loc.R. 45(B)(1)(a). 2003Myles v. Wyatt (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 191 , 580 N.E.2d 1080 . {¶ 5} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit "specifying the details of the claim" as required by Local Rule 45(B)(1)(a). | 3 | 2003–2004 |
Myles v. Wyatt
green
2 sentences2004Myles v. Wyatt (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 191 , 580 N.E.2d 1080 . {¶ 3} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit "specifying the details of the claim" as required by Loc.R. 45(B)(1)(a). 2003Myles v. Wyatt (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 191 , 580 N.E.2d 1080 . {¶ 5} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit "specifying the details of the claim" as required by Local Rule 45(B)(1)(a). | 3 | 2003–2004 |
State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman
green
2 sentences2014Gantt v. Coleman, 6 Ohio St.3d 5 , 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983). {¶3} It must also be noted that Benson’s complaint did not contain a sworn affidavit that specified the details of his claim required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), or an affidavit that specified each civil action or appeal of a civil action filed within the last five years as required by R.C. 2969.25(A). 2014Gantt v. Coleman, 6 Ohio St.3d 5 , 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983). {¶3} It must also be noted that Benson’s complaint did not contain a sworn affidavit that specified the details of his claim required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), or an affidavit that specified each civil action or appeal of a civil action filed within the last five years as required by R.C. 2969.25(A). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
McDougald v. Brunsman
green
2 sentences2014Court of Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 176 , 724 N.E.2d 420 (2000); and Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22 , 2011-Ohio-4608 , 955 N.E.2d 378 . {¶5} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). 2014Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492 , 2006-Ohio-1507 , 844 N.E.2d 842 ; and Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22 , 2011-Ohio-4608 , 955 N.E.2d 378 . {¶4} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas
neutral
2 sentences2012Court of Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2000-Ohio-285 , 724 N.E.2d 420 ; Hazel v. Knab, 120 Ohio St.2d 22 , 2011-Ohio-4608 , 955 N.E.2d 378 . {¶4} Additionally, he failed to support his complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). 2011Court of Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2000-Ohio-285 , 724 N.E.2d 420 ; and Hazel v. Knab, 2011-Ohio-4608 . {¶ 5} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” as required by Local Rule 45(B)(1)(a). | 2 | 2011–2012 |
Barry v. Galvin, Unpublished Decision (5-9-2005)
neutral
2 sentences2009Attached to the complaint is Smith's affidavit, in which he merely avers that he has "personal knowledge of the facts stated in the foregoing Motion To Vacate Void Judgment and Conviction" [sic] and verifies "that the facts stated herein are True and Correct to the best of my knowledge and belief." Affidavit of Verity (capitalization in original). {¶ 4} In Barry v. Galvin , Cuyahoga App. No. 85990, 2005-Ohio-2324 , the relator averred "that the statements and allegations set forth in the complaint are true and accurate to the best of his knowledge and belief. 2006Barry v. Galvin, Cuyahoga App. No. 85990, 2005-Ohio-2324 . {¶ 9} Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss is granted. | 2 | 2006–2009 |
State ex rel. Alford v. Winters
neutral
2 sentences2008Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. , 82 Ohio St.3d 421 , 1998-Ohio-218 , 696 N.E.2d 594 ; Alford v. Winters , 80 Ohio St.3d 285 , 1997-Ohio-117 , 685 N.E.2d 1242 . *Page 4 {¶ 4} Finally, Alexander has failed to comply Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), which mandates that the complaint for a writ of mandamus be supported by a sworn affidavit that specifies the details of his claim. 2006Alford v. Winters, 80 Ohio St.3d 285 , 1997-Ohio-117 , 685 N.E.2d 1242 . {¶ 3} In addition, McKay has failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) which requires that the complaint for a writ of mandamus must be supported by an affidavit that specifies the details of the claim. | 2 | 2006–2008 |
Chari v. Vore
green
2 sentences2007Chari v. Vore , 91 Ohio St.3d 323 , 2001-Ohio-49 , 744 N.E.2d 763 . {¶ 5} Additionally, Clarke failed to support his complaint with an affidavit "specifying the details of the claim" as required by Local Rule 45(B)(1)(a). 2007Chari v. Vore , 91 Ohio St.3d 323 , 2001-Ohio-49 , 744 N.E.2d 763 . {¶ 5} Additionally, Clarke failed to support his complaint with an affidavit "specifying the details of the claim" as required by Local Rule 45(B)(1)(a). | 2 | 2002–2007 |
State Ex Rel. Bailey v. Mannen, Unpublished Decision (11-18-2005)
neutral
2 sentences2007State ex rel Bailey v. Mannen , Cuyahoga App. No. 86757, 2005 Ohio 6236 , at P3." State ex rel. 2006State ex rel Bailey v. Mannen, Cuyahoga App. No. 86757, 2005-Ohio-6236 , at ¶ 3. {¶ 4} "* * * Additionally, relator `did not file an R.C. 2969.25 (A) affidavit describing each civil action or appeal of a civil action he had filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court and also did not file an R.C. 2969.25 (C) certified statement by his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his private account for each of the preceding six months.' State ex rel. | 2 | 2006–2007 |
State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Court of Common Pleas
green
2 sentences2005Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278 , 1996-Ohio-117 , 658 N.E.2d 723 . {¶ 3} We also find that Stanley failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) which provides that all complaints must contain the specific statements of fact upon which the claim of illegality is based and must be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the claim. 2005Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278 , 1996-Ohio-117 , 658 N.E.2d 723 . {¶ 3} We also find that Stanley failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) which provides that all complaints must contain the specific statements of fact upon which the claim of illegality is based and must be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the claim. | 2 | 2003–2005 |
State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus
green
2 sentences2003Ney v. Niehaus (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 118 , 515 N.E.2d 914 . {¶ 8} We also find that Phillips failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) which provides that all complaints must contain the specific statements of fact upon which the claim of illegality is based and must be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the claim. 2003Ney v. Niehaus (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 118 , 515 N.E.2d 914 . {¶ 8} We also find that Phillips failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) which provides that all complaints must contain the specific statements of fact upon which the claim of illegality is based and must be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the claim. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
State ex rel. Sekermestrovich v. City of Akron
green
2 sentences2001Sekermestrovich v. Akron (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 536, 538 , 740 N.E.2d 252 , 254, quoting State ex rel. 2001Sekermestrovich v. Akron (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 536, 538 , 740 N.E.2d 252 , 254, quoting State ex rel. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
In re S.J.
green
2 sentences2020He has not, therefore, averred facts which indicate that respondent’s exercise of jurisdiction was “inconsistent with the appellate court’s jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment appealed from.” In Re S.J., [ 106 Ohio St.3d 11 , 2005-Ohio3215, 829 N.E.2d 1207, ¶ 9 ]. 2020He has not, therefore, averred facts which indicate that respondent’s exercise of jurisdiction was “inconsistent with the appellate court’s jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment appealed from.” In Re S.J., [ 106 Ohio St.3d 11 , 2005-Ohio3215, 829 N.E.2d 1207, ¶ 9 ]. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State ex rel. Boccuzzi v. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners
green
2 sentences2020Bd. of Commrs., 112 Ohio St.3d 438 , 2007-Ohio-323 , 860 N.E.2d 749, at ¶19 ; Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) (“All complaints must contain the specific statements of fact upon which the claim of illegality is based and must be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the claim.”). 2020Bd. of Commrs., 112 Ohio St.3d 438 , 2007-Ohio-323 , 860 N.E.2d 749, at ¶19 ; Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) (“All complaints must contain the specific statements of fact upon which the claim of illegality is based and must be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the claim.”). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Persinger v. State, Unpublished Decision (1-9-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2014Cuyahoga No. 89149, 2007-Ohio-67, ¶ 2 . {¶3} Additionally, Litwinowicz failed to support his complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.R. 45(B)(1)(a). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Department
green
2 sentences2014Court of Common Pleas, 135 Ohio St.3d 456 , 2013-Ohio-1911 , 989 N.E.2d 49, ¶ 2 (reaffirming finding that “the Eighth District’s reading of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1) is reasonable and that it may dismiss a writ case that fails to comply with the requirement that an affidavit ‘specify[ ] the details of the claim.’”); Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Dept., 75 Ohio St.3d 508 , 664 N.E.2d 521 (1996) (complaint for mandamus must be dismissed where the complaint was not brought in the name of the state on relation of the relator, the respondent objects, and the relator fails to 2014Court of Common Pleas, 135 Ohio St.3d 456 , 2013-Ohio-1911 , 989 N.E.2d 49, ¶ 2 (reaffirming finding that “the Eighth District’s reading of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1) is reasonable and that it may dismiss a writ case that fails to comply with the requirement that an affidavit ‘specify[ ] the details of the claim.’”); Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Dept., 75 Ohio St.3d 508 , 664 N.E.2d 521 (1996) (complaint for mandamus must be dismissed where the complaint was not brought in the name of the state on relation of the relator, the respondent objects, and the relator fails to | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier
neutral
1 sentence2014Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492 , 2006-Ohio-1507 , 844 N.E.2d 842 ; and Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22 , 2011-Ohio-4608 , 955 N.E.2d 378 . {¶4} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State ex rel. Manns v. Henson
green
2 sentences2013Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348 , 2008-Ohio-4478 , 894 N.E.2d 47 . {¶5} For writ actions filed in the Eighth District, Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) requires the petitioner to support the complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim.” A “swear to everything” affidavit is insufficient to fulfill this requirement. 2013Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348 , 2008-Ohio-4478 , 894 N.E.2d 47 . {¶5} For writ actions filed in the Eighth District, Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) requires the petitioner to support the complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim.” A “swear to everything” affidavit is insufficient to fulfill this requirement. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State Ex Rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
green
2 sentences2013Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124 , 2009-Ohio-4688 , 914 N.E.2d 402, ¶ 1 ; see State ex rel. 2013Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124 , 2009-Ohio-4688 , 914 N.E.2d 402, ¶ 1 ; see State ex rel. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State, Ex Rel. Corder v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2013Corder v. Wilson, 68 Ohio App.3d 567 , 589 N.E.2d 113 (10th Dist.1991). {¶3} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). 2013Corder v. Wilson, 68 Ohio App.3d 567 , 589 N.E.2d 113 (10th Dist.1991). {¶3} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Perry v. State, Unpublished Decision (10-12-2007) neutral | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Board green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State ex rel. Morgan v. City of New Lexington green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Chari v. Vore green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Clarke v. McFaul, 89436 (4-5-2007) green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Mentor Lagoons, Inc. v. Rubin green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Jarrett v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court, Unpublished Decision (5-2-2006) neutral | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State Ex Rel. Elko v. Suster, Unpublished Decision (3-8-2006) neutral | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas. neutral | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State Ex Rel. Perotti v. McFaul, Unpublished Decision (2-3-2004) green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State ex rel. Gadsden v. Lioi neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| In re Singer green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| In re Jackson green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Grundstein v. Carroll, Unpublished Decision (5-3-2004) neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.