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.
8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticutgreen2 sentences1997A court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh ‘the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate’ against ‘the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule,’ taking into consideration ‘the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.’ Id., at 789 [ 103 S.Ct., at 1570 , 75 L.Ed.2d, at 558 ]; Tashjian [v. Republican Party of Connecticut], supra [ 479 U.S. 208 ], at 213-214 [ 107 S.Ct. 5 1997A court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh ‘the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate’ against ‘the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule,’ taking into consideration ‘the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.’ Id., at 789 [ 103 S.Ct., at 1570 , 75 L.Ed.2d, at 558 ]; Tashjian [v. Republican Party of Connecticut], supra [ 479 U.S. 208 ], at 213-214 [ 107 S.Ct. 5 | 4 | 4 |
State ex rel. Purdy v. Clermont County Board of Electionsgreen2 sentences2014Purdy, 77 Ohio St.3d at 343, 673 N.E.2d 1351 ; Burdick at 434 . 2014Purdy, 77 Ohio St.3d at 343, 673 N.E.2d 1351 ; Burdick at 434 . | 2 | 2 |
Anderson v. Celebrezzegreen2 sentences2017Therefore, the cases cited by LPO are distinguishable from the present matter. {¶ 68} Next, we must "identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule." Anderson at 789, 103 S.Ct. 1564 . 2017Instead, the Anderson - Burdick test requires a court to "identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule." Anderson at 789, 103 S.Ct. 1564 . | 1 | 7 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burdick v. Takushi
green
2 sentences2014Second, the court must weigh the character and magnitude of that constitutional injury against “ ‘the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule.’ ” Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434 , 112 S.Ct. 2059 , 119 L.Ed.2d 245 , quoting Anderson at 789 . {¶ 33} The magnitude of the burden determines the appropriate level of scrutiny the statute will receive. 2014Second, the court must weigh the character and magnitude of that constitutional injury against “ ‘the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule.’ ” Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434 , 112 S.Ct. 2059 , 119 L.Ed.2d 245 , quoting Anderson at 789 . {¶ 33} The magnitude of the burden determines the appropriate level of scrutiny the statute will receive. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Price v. New York State Board of Elections
green
2 sentences2014“The State need not provide empirical evidence justifying its interest; however, the State cannot rely on hollow or contrived arguments as justifications.” Trudell v. State, 193 Vt. 515 , 2013 VT 18 , 71 A.3d 1235, at ¶ 21 ; Price v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 540 F.3d at 110 . 2014“The State need not provide empirical evidence justifying its interest; however, the State cannot rely on hollow or contrived arguments as justifications.” Trudell v. State, 193 Vt. 515 , 2013 VT 18 , 71 A.3d 1235, at ¶ 21 ; Price v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 540 F.3d at 110 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Trudell and Dorfman v. State and Markowitz
green
2 sentences2014“The State need not provide empirical evidence justifying its interest; however, the State cannot rely on hollow or contrived arguments as justifications.” Trudell v. State, 193 Vt. 515 , 2013 VT 18 , 71 A.3d 1235, at ¶ 21 ; Price v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 540 F.3d at 110 . 2014“The State need not provide empirical evidence justifying its interest; however, the State cannot rely on hollow or contrived arguments as justifications.” Trudell v. State, 193 Vt. 515 , 2013 VT 18 , 71 A.3d 1235, at ¶ 21 ; Price v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 540 F.3d at 110 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
green
2 sentences2017Election Bd. , 553 U.S. 181 , 190, 128 S.Ct. 1610 , 170 L.Ed.2d 574 (2008). 3. 2017Election Bd. , 553 U.S. 181 , 190, 128 S.Ct. 1610 , 170 L.Ed.2d 574 (2008). 3. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Clark v. Smith
green
1 sentence2003Insofar as appellant believes the trial court was bound to weigh the harm of appellee's move from Ohio to North Carolina, he misunderstands the nature of the burden imposed by the test enunciated in Clark, supra, et al. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.