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 1994–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Geergreen2 sentences2013Dispatch Printing Co. v. Geer, 114 Ohio St.3d 511 , 2007-Ohio-4643 , 873 N.E.2d 314, ¶ 20 (prohibiting enforcement of a juvenile-court judge’s media restriction that was issued “without allowing all parties affected to have the opportunity to respond to the possibility of a restriction”). {¶ 7} Given this precedent — along with the fact that the Enquirer has filed objections to the pending closure motions and has entered an appearance for the hearing — the Enquirer and other similarly situated media entities shall be considered the equivalent to a party in the closure proceedings for purposes 2013Dispatch Printing Co. v. Geer, 114 Ohio St.3d 511 , 2007-Ohio-4643 , 873 N.E.2d 314, ¶ 20 (prohibiting enforcement of a juvenile-court judge’s media restriction that was issued “without allowing all parties affected to have the opportunity to respond to the possibility of a restriction”). {¶ 7} Given this precedent — along with the fact that the Enquirer has filed objections to the pending closure motions and has entered an appearance for the hearing — the Enquirer and other similarly situated media entities shall be considered the equivalent to a party in the closure proceedings for purposes | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Geauga County Court of Common Pleasgreen2 sentences2006As cogently observed by the Plain Dealer, Judge Floyd’s granting closure because there was no opposition, when combined with the juvenile court’s general failure to give notice concerning closure motions and hearings on those motions, effectively precluded the general public from most juvenile court proceedings, resulting in an unfounded presumption of closed juvenile proceedings. {¶ 35} This result fails to accord sufficient weight to the “many legitimate interests [that] favor public access to [juvenile delinquency] proceedings.” Plain Dealer, 90 Ohio St.3d at 84, 734 N.E.2d 1214 . 2006As cogently observed by the Plain Dealer, Judge Floyd’s granting closure because there was no opposition, when combined with the juvenile court’s general failure to give notice concerning closure motions and hearings on those motions, effectively precluded the general public from most juvenile court proceedings, resulting in an unfounded presumption of closed juvenile proceedings. {¶ 35} This result fails to accord sufficient weight to the “many legitimate interests [that] favor public access to [juvenile delinquency] proceedings.” Plain Dealer, 90 Ohio St.3d at 84, 734 N.E.2d 1214 . | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Roszmann v. Lions Dengreen1 sentence2002See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Solove
green
2 sentences2000This case is thus distinguishable from T.R., where the parties submitted evidence, including testimony by a psychologist and a social worker, about the potential harm to the child from permitting the public to have access to the juvenile proceedings. 52 Ohio St.3d at 8-9 , 556 N.E.2d at 443-444 . 2000This case is thus distinguishable from T.R., where the parties submitted evidence, including testimony by a psychologist and a social worker, about the potential harm to the child from permitting the public to have access to the juvenile proceedings. 52 Ohio St.3d at 8-9 , 556 N.E.2d at 443-444 . | 4 | 1994–2000 |
State ex rel. Miami Valley Broadcasting Corp. v. Kessler
green
2 sentences2000Miami Valley Broadcasting Corp. v. Kessler (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 165, 167 , 18 O.O.3d 383, 385 , 413 N.E.2d 1203, 1205 , where we .stated that in the absence of an active and meaningful role by the parties involved in a juvenile proceeding, the closure hearing “ ‘would become meaningless and the resultant decision would merely represent the personal predilections of the presiding judge.’” In fact, J.H. introduced no evidence at the closure hearing and did not intervene or submit evidence in this action. 2000Miami Valley Broadcasting Corp. v. Kessler (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 165, 167 , 18 O.O.3d 383, 385 , 413 N.E.2d 1203, 1205 , where we .stated that in the absence of an active and meaningful role by the parties involved in a juvenile proceeding, the closure hearing “ ‘would become meaningless and the resultant decision would merely represent the personal predilections of the presiding judge.’” In fact, J.H. introduced no evidence at the closure hearing and did not intervene or submit evidence in this action. | 3 | 1994–2000 |
State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Floyd
green
1 sentence2013Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Floyd, 111 Ohio St.3d 56 , 2006-Ohio-4437 , 855 N.E.2d 35 , ¶ 46 (“We have held that the press and the general public have standing to contest the closure of a juvenile court proceeding”); id. (“under the current version of Juv.R. 27(A)(1), persons—including the public and the press — have a right to present evidence at a closure hearing to show a ‘countervailing right to be present’ at a juvenile court proceeding”); id. at ¶ 47 (“ ‘representatives of the press and general public “must be given the opportunity to be heard on the question of exclusion” ’ ”), quoti | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, County of Norfolk
green
2 sentences2013Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Floyd, 111 Ohio St.3d 56 , 2006-Ohio-4437 , 855 N.E.2d 35 , ¶ 46 (“We have held that the press and the general public have standing to contest the closure of a juvenile court proceeding”); id. (“under the current version of Juv.R. 27(A)(1), persons—including the public and the press — have a right to present evidence at a closure hearing to show a ‘countervailing right to be present’ at a juvenile court proceeding”); id. at ¶ 47 (“ ‘representatives of the press and general public “must be given the opportunity to be heard on the question of exclusion” ’ ”), quoti 2013Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Floyd, 111 Ohio St.3d 56 , 2006-Ohio-4437 , 855 N.E.2d 35 , ¶ 46 (“We have held that the press and the general public have standing to contest the closure of a juvenile court proceeding”); id. (“under the current version of Juv.R. 27(A)(1), persons—including the public and the press — have a right to present evidence at a closure hearing to show a ‘countervailing right to be present’ at a juvenile court proceeding”); id. at ¶ 47 (“ ‘representatives of the press and general public “must be given the opportunity to be heard on the question of exclusion” ’ ”), quoti | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Gannett Co. v. DePasquale
green
2 sentences2013Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Floyd, 111 Ohio St.3d 56 , 2006-Ohio-4437 , 855 N.E.2d 35 , ¶ 46 (“We have held that the press and the general public have standing to contest the closure of a juvenile court proceeding”); id. (“under the current version of Juv.R. 27(A)(1), persons—including the public and the press — have a right to present evidence at a closure hearing to show a ‘countervailing right to be present’ at a juvenile court proceeding”); id. at ¶ 47 (“ ‘representatives of the press and general public “must be given the opportunity to be heard on the question of exclusion” ’ ”), quoti 2013Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Floyd, 111 Ohio St.3d 56 , 2006-Ohio-4437 , 855 N.E.2d 35 , ¶ 46 (“We have held that the press and the general public have standing to contest the closure of a juvenile court proceeding”); id. (“under the current version of Juv.R. 27(A)(1), persons—including the public and the press — have a right to present evidence at a closure hearing to show a ‘countervailing right to be present’ at a juvenile court proceeding”); id. at ¶ 47 (“ ‘representatives of the press and general public “must be given the opportunity to be heard on the question of exclusion” ’ ”), quoti | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Louden
neutral
1 sentence2001Dispatch Printing Co. v. Louden, 2001-Ohio-268 .] Prohibition—Writ sought to prohibit judge of common pleas court, juvenile division, from closing access to the public from any future juvenile court proceedings without first conducting a closure hearing and making the required findings—Mandamus sought ordering judge to provide Dispatch Printing Company with a complete unredacted copy of the transcript of the closed detention hearing concerning fourteen year old—Writs granted. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Barnes
green
2 sentences2001Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Barnes (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 165 , 527 N.E.2d 807 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 27} Accordingly, I concur in the decision to grant a peremptory writ of prohibition to prohibit respondent from closing off access by the news media and public to any future juvenile court proceedings without first conducting a closure hearing and making required findings. 2001Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Barnes (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 165 , 527 N.E.2d 807 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 27} Accordingly, I concur in the decision to grant a peremptory writ of prohibition to prohibit respondent from closing off access by the news media and public to any future juvenile court proceedings without first conducting a closure hearing and making required findings. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Lias
green
1 sentence1994Dispatch Printing Co. v. Lias, 1994-Ohio-335 .] Juvenile court—Closure hearing warranted, when—Requirements for closed closure hearing—Court's finding of closure or nonclosure of proceeding is a final order subject to appeal—Persons present and participating at in camera inspection to determine appropriateness of closed closure hearing prohibited from disseminating information determined to be excluded from public disclosure until competent authority determines such information may be released. 1. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.