8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Calmes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.green2 sentences1995See Calmes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 470, 475 , 575 N.E.2d 416, 420, fn. 3 ; O’Connell v. Chesapeake & Ohio RR. 1995See Calmes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 470, 475 , 575 N.E.2d 416, 420, fn. 3 ; O’Connell v. Chesapeake & Ohio RR. | 3 | 3 |
Wells Fargo v. Phillabaumgreen2 sentences2013Wells Fargo v. Phillabaum, 192 Ohio App.3d 712 , 2011-Ohio-1311, ¶ 7 (4th Dist.). {¶ 20} By his first assignment of error, Bodager argues that the trial court erred in granting defendants summary judgment on the state law claims of assault and battery, as well as the federal law claim that Anderson and Campbell violated 42 U.S.C. 1983 by using excessive force. 2013Wells Fargo v. Phillabaum, 192 Ohio App.3d 712 , 2011-Ohio-1311, ¶ 7 (4th Dist.). {¶ 20} By his first assignment of error, Bodager argues that the trial court erred in granting defendants summary judgment on the state law claims of assault and battery, as well as the federal law claim that Anderson and Campbell violated 42 U.S.C. 1983 by using excessive force. | 1 | 1 |
Henning v. Union Pacific Railroadgreen1 sentence2009See Henning, 530 F.3d at 1215 (“It is apparent that § 646.214(b)(3) and (4) [Title 23, C.F.R.] do not establish a federal standard of care under which a railroad must act”); Shanklin, 529 U.S. at 353-354 , 120 S.Ct. 1467 , 146 L.Ed.2d 374 , quoting Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 670 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (“Unlike the other regulations, ‘§§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) [Title 23, C.F.R.] displace state and private decisionmak *305 ing authority by establishing a federal-law requirement that certain protective devices be installed or federal approval obtained’ ”). {¶ 28} Accordingly, because Sect | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reed v. Farley
green
2 sentences2017Federal courts may only grant relief for state violations of a federal law if the violation rises to the level of a “‘fundamental defect, which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice,’ or is ‘inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.’” Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 348 , 114 S.Ct. 2291 , 129 L.Ed.2d 277 (1994), quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 , 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962). 2017Federal courts may only grant relief for state violations of a federal law if the violation rises to the level of a “‘fundamental defect, which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice,’ or is ‘inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.’” Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 348 , 114 S.Ct. 2291 , 129 L.Ed.2d 277 (1994), quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 , 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962). | 2 | 2014–2017 |
Hill v. United States
green
2 sentences2017Federal courts may only grant relief for state violations of a federal law if the violation rises to the level of a “‘fundamental defect, which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice,’ or is ‘inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.’” Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 348 , 114 S.Ct. 2291 , 129 L.Ed.2d 277 (1994), quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 , 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962). 2017Federal courts may only grant relief for state violations of a federal law if the violation rises to the level of a “‘fundamental defect, which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice,’ or is ‘inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.’” Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 348 , 114 S.Ct. 2291 , 129 L.Ed.2d 277 (1994), quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 , 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962). | 2 | 2014–2017 |
Apparel Art International, Inc. v. Amertex Enterprises Ltd.
green
1 sentence2011(C.A.1, 1995), 48 F.3d 576 ; Kale v. Combined Ins. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood
green
2 sentences2009See Henning, 530 F.3d at 1215 (“It is apparent that § 646.214(b)(3) and (4) [Title 23, C.F.R.] do not establish a federal standard of care under which a railroad must act”); Shanklin, 529 U.S. at 353-354 , 120 S.Ct. 1467 , 146 L.Ed.2d 374 , quoting Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 670 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (“Unlike the other regulations, ‘§§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) [Title 23, C.F.R.] displace state and private decisionmak *305 ing authority by establishing a federal-law requirement that certain protective devices be installed or federal approval obtained’ ”). {¶ 28} Accordingly, because Sect 2009See Henning, 530 F.3d at 1215 (“It is apparent that § 646.214(b)(3) and (4) [Title 23, C.F.R.] do not establish a federal standard of care under which a railroad must act”); Shanklin, 529 U.S. at 353-354 , 120 S.Ct. 1467 , 146 L.Ed.2d 374 , quoting Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 670 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (“Unlike the other regulations, ‘§§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) [Title 23, C.F.R.] displace state and private decisionmak *305 ing authority by establishing a federal-law requirement that certain protective devices be installed or federal approval obtained’ ”). {¶ 28} Accordingly, because Sect | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Shanklin
green
2 sentences2009See Henning, 530 F.3d at 1215 (“It is apparent that § 646.214(b)(3) and (4) [Title 23, C.F.R.] do not establish a federal standard of care under which a railroad must act”); Shanklin, 529 U.S. at 353-354 , 120 S.Ct. 1467 , 146 L.Ed.2d 374 , quoting Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 670 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (“Unlike the other regulations, ‘§§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) [Title 23, C.F.R.] displace state and private decisionmak *305 ing authority by establishing a federal-law requirement that certain protective devices be installed or federal approval obtained’ ”). {¶ 28} Accordingly, because Sect 2009See Henning, 530 F.3d at 1215 (“It is apparent that § 646.214(b)(3) and (4) [Title 23, C.F.R.] do not establish a federal standard of care under which a railroad must act”); Shanklin, 529 U.S. at 353-354 , 120 S.Ct. 1467 , 146 L.Ed.2d 374 , quoting Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 670 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (“Unlike the other regulations, ‘§§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) [Title 23, C.F.R.] displace state and private decisionmak *305 ing authority by establishing a federal-law requirement that certain protective devices be installed or federal approval obtained’ ”). {¶ 28} Accordingly, because Sect | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.