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 2005–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lukasiewicz v. Piotrowiczgreen1 sentence2025This court has held that “issues raised for the first time in summary judgment proceedings could constitute an amendment to prior pleadings under Civ.R. 15(B) if the issue was ‘implicitly tried’ by the parties.” Lukasiewicz v. Piotrowicz, 2024-Ohio-2754, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.), citing Staniec v. Rosiar, 2021-Ohio-2142 , ¶ 23 (6th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Lykins v. Miami Valley Hospitalgreen2 sentences2022See Lykins v. Miami Valley Hosp., 157 Ohio App.3d 291, 323 , 2004-Ohio-2732 (2d Dist.2004). 2022See Lykins v. Miami Valley Hosp., 157 Ohio App.3d 291, 323 , 2004-Ohio-2732 (2d Dist.2004). | 1 | 1 |
In re Termination of Employment of Prattgreen1 sentence2022Thus, "[w]here there is no fiduciary relationship between the parties, a breach of fiduciary claim necessarily fails." Patel at ¶ 47, citing Waffen v. Summers, 6th Dist. No. OT-08-034, 2009-Ohio-2940 , ¶ 41. {¶ 42} A fiduciary relationship is a relationship " 'in which special confidence and trust is reposed in the integrity and fidelity of another and there is a resulting position of superiority or influence, acquired by virtue of this special trust.' " Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 , 2006-Ohio-1189 , ¶ 16, quoting In re Termination of Emp. of Pratt, 40 Ohio St.2d 107, 115 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Spalla v. Fransengreen2 sentences2016Spalla v. Fransen, 188 Ohio App.3d 666 , 2010-Ohio-3461 , 936 N.E.2d 559, ¶ 28-29 (11th Dist.2010). {¶ 28} Here, appellant avers Reeves had a duty to send notification to a specific address in New York, did not serve appellant at this address, and therefore, failed to comply with due process requirements. 2016Spalla v. Fransen, 188 Ohio App.3d 666 , 2010-Ohio-3461 , 936 N.E.2d 559, ¶ 28-29 (11th Dist.2010). {¶ 28} Here, appellant avers Reeves had a duty to send notification to a specific address in New York, did not serve appellant at this address, and therefore, failed to comply with due process requirements. | 1 | 1 |
Foust v. Valleybrook Realty Co.green2 sentences2005See Parahoo v. Mancini (Apr. 14, 1998), Franklin App. No. 97APE08-1071, 1998 WL 180539 (citing Foust v. Valleybrook Realty Co. (1981), 4 Ohio App.3d 164 , 446 N.E.2d 1122 ). 2005See Parahoo v. Mancini (Apr. 14, 1998), Franklin App. No. 97APE08-1071, 1998 WL 180539 (citing Foust v. Valleybrook Realty Co. (1981), 4 Ohio App.3d 164 , 446 N.E.2d 1122 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Campbell v. 1 Spring, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2026The second scenario arises “where there is an objection to the evidence offered on grounds that it is not within the issues framed by the pleadings.” Id. {¶ 17} Bellows did not expressly consent to the trial of a breach of fiduciary claim. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Palmer v. Hopkins, 2006-A-0020 (6-15-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2025Palmer v. Hopkins, 2007-Ohio-3026 (11th Dist.). {¶129} As to appellees’/cross-appellants’ second argument that the damages assessed by the jury belong to Clark Brothers rather than to Jay individually, we agree a breach of fiduciary claim against the majority shareholder claim occurs when a shareholder manipulates control over a close corporation to unfairly acquire personal benefits owing to or not otherwise available to minority shareholders. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Edelman v. JELBS
green
1 sentence2025Edelman v. JELBS, 2015-Ohio-5542 (10th Dist). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Massien
green
2 sentences2022A fiduciary "has a duty, created by its undertaking, to act primarily for the benefit of another in matters connected with its undertaking." Cristino v. Admr., Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 10th Dist. No. 12AP-60, 2012-Ohio-4420 , ¶ 17, citing State v. Massien, 125 Ohio St.3d 204 , 2010-Ohio-1864, ¶ 35 . 2022A fiduciary "has a duty, created by its undertaking, to act primarily for the benefit of another in matters connected with its undertaking." Cristino v. Admr., Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 10th Dist. No. 12AP-60, 2012-Ohio-4420 , ¶ 17, citing State v. Massien, 125 Ohio St.3d 204 , 2010-Ohio-1864, ¶ 35 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Groob v. KeyBank
green
1 sentence2022Thus, "[w]here there is no fiduciary relationship between the parties, a breach of fiduciary claim necessarily fails." Patel at ¶ 47, citing Waffen v. Summers, 6th Dist. No. OT-08-034, 2009-Ohio-2940 , ¶ 41. {¶ 42} A fiduciary relationship is a relationship " 'in which special confidence and trust is reposed in the integrity and fidelity of another and there is a resulting position of superiority or influence, acquired by virtue of this special trust.' " Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 , 2006-Ohio-1189 , ¶ 16, quoting In re Termination of Emp. of Pratt, 40 Ohio St.2d 107, 115 (1974). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Byrley v. Nationwide Life Insurance
green
2 sentences2017Byrley , 94 Ohio App.3d at 13 -14 , 640 N.E.2d 187 . 2017Byrley , 94 Ohio App.3d at 13 -14 , 640 N.E.2d 187 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Luri v. Republic Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013In Kramer, the district court held that the definition of “tort action” outlined in R.C. 2315.21 did not apply to R.C. 1701.59, which governed the breach of fiduciary claim at issue. {¶64} In addition, we remain reliant on our determination in Luri v. Republic Servs., 193 Ohio App.3d 682 , 2011-Ohio-2389 , 953 N.E.2d 859 (8th Dist.), rev’d on other grounds, 132 Ohio St.3d 316 , 2012-Ohio-2914 , 971 N.E.2d 944 , that R.C. 2315.21 applies to retaliatory discharge actions brought under R.C. 2013In Kramer, the district court held that the definition of “tort action” outlined in R.C. 2315.21 did not apply to R.C. 1701.59, which governed the breach of fiduciary claim at issue. {¶64} In addition, we remain reliant on our determination in Luri v. Republic Servs., 193 Ohio App.3d 682 , 2011-Ohio-2389 , 953 N.E.2d 859 (8th Dist.), rev’d on other grounds, 132 Ohio St.3d 316 , 2012-Ohio-2914 , 971 N.E.2d 944 , that R.C. 2315.21 applies to retaliatory discharge actions brought under R.C. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Luri v. Republic Servs., Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2013In Kramer, the district court held that the definition of “tort action” outlined in R.C. 2315.21 did not apply to R.C. 1701.59, which governed the breach of fiduciary claim at issue. {¶64} In addition, we remain reliant on our determination in Luri v. Republic Servs., 193 Ohio App.3d 682 , 2011-Ohio-2389 , 953 N.E.2d 859 (8th Dist.), rev’d on other grounds, 132 Ohio St.3d 316 , 2012-Ohio-2914 , 971 N.E.2d 944 , that R.C. 2315.21 applies to retaliatory discharge actions brought under R.C. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Luri v. Republic Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013In Kramer, the district court held that the definition of “tort action” outlined in R.C. 2315.21 did not apply to R.C. 1701.59, which governed the breach of fiduciary claim at issue. {¶64} In addition, we remain reliant on our determination in Luri v. Republic Servs., 193 Ohio App.3d 682 , 2011-Ohio-2389 , 953 N.E.2d 859 (8th Dist.), rev’d on other grounds, 132 Ohio St.3d 316 , 2012-Ohio-2914 , 971 N.E.2d 944 , that R.C. 2315.21 applies to retaliatory discharge actions brought under R.C. 2013In Kramer, the district court held that the definition of “tort action” outlined in R.C. 2315.21 did not apply to R.C. 1701.59, which governed the breach of fiduciary claim at issue. {¶64} In addition, we remain reliant on our determination in Luri v. Republic Servs., 193 Ohio App.3d 682 , 2011-Ohio-2389 , 953 N.E.2d 859 (8th Dist.), rev’d on other grounds, 132 Ohio St.3d 316 , 2012-Ohio-2914 , 971 N.E.2d 944 , that R.C. 2315.21 applies to retaliatory discharge actions brought under R.C. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.