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 2014–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblygreen2 sentences2026See id. {¶ 21} Notwithstanding the heightened federal pleading standard established in Twombly and Iqbal, the Supreme Court of Ohio “has never adopted that standard.” State ex rel. 2026See id. {¶ 21} Notwithstanding the heightened federal pleading standard established in Twombly and Iqbal, the Supreme Court of Ohio “has never adopted that standard.” State ex rel. | 3 | 6 |
Ashcroft v. Iqbalgreen2 sentences2024Booth’s attorney also relies on the heightened federal pleading standard established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). 2024Booth’s attorney also relies on the heightened federal pleading standard established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). | 2 | 6 |
Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2026Ware v. Booth, 2024-Ohio-2102, ¶ 5, fn. 1 , citing Maternal Grandmother, ADMR at ¶ 28 (DeWine, J., concurring in judgment only). 2026See, e.g., Ware at ¶ 5, fn. 1 ; Maternal Grandmother, ADMR at ¶ 25-29 (DeWine, J., concurring in judgment only); State ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
State ex rel. Ware v. Boothgreen2 sentences2026Ware v. Booth, 2024-Ohio-2102, ¶ 5, fn. 1 , citing Maternal Grandmother, ADMR at ¶ 28 (DeWine, J., concurring in judgment only). 2026See, e.g., Ware at ¶ 5, fn. 1 ; Maternal Grandmother, ADMR at ¶ 25-29 (DeWine, J., concurring in judgment only); State ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
Smiley v. Clevelandgreen1 sentence2026See also Smiley v. Cleveland, 2016-Ohio-7711, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.) (“It is important to note that Ohio has not adopted the heightened federal pleading standard outlined in [Twombly and Iqbal], which requires a plaintiff to plead sufficient facts that state a ‘plausible’ claim for relief.”); Hendrickson v. Haven Place, Inc., 2014-Ohio-3726, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.) (In Tuleta, “this court reviewed and then rejected federal case law, which heightened the notice pleading standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), finding that Ohio has not adopted the modification of notice pleading standards as set forth in” Twombly and I | 1 | 1 |
Hendrickson v. Haven Place, Inc.green1 sentence2026See also Smiley v. Cleveland, 2016-Ohio-7711, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.) (“It is important to note that Ohio has not adopted the heightened federal pleading standard outlined in [Twombly and Iqbal], which requires a plaintiff to plead sufficient facts that state a ‘plausible’ claim for relief.”); Hendrickson v. Haven Place, Inc., 2014-Ohio-3726, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.) (In Tuleta, “this court reviewed and then rejected federal case law, which heightened the notice pleading standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), finding that Ohio has not adopted the modification of notice pleading standards as set forth in” Twombly and I | 1 | 1 |
Duff v. Ohio Bd. of Commrs., Unpublished Decision (7-9-2004)green1 sentence2026This “standard relies on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and issues to dispose of nonmeritorious claims.” Vinicky v. Pristas, 2005-Ohio-5196 , ¶ 6 No. 25AP-319 7 (8th Dist.), citing Duff v. Coshocton Cty., 2004-Ohio-3713, ¶ 32 (5th Dist.) (describing “[t]he liberal notice pleading of Rule 8(a) [as] the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim”). {¶ 20} In contrast, the federal pleading standard generally requires that a complaint contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as tr | 1 | 1 |
Kathryn Keys v. Humana, Inc.green1 sentence2025Under the federal pleading standard, “‘[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level’ and to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Keys v. Humana, Inc., 684 F.3d 605, 608 (6th Cir. 2012), quoting Twombly at 555, 570 ; see Tobin v. InterLinc Mtge. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vinicky v. Pristas
green
1 sentence2026This “standard relies on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and issues to dispose of nonmeritorious claims.” Vinicky v. Pristas, 2005-Ohio-5196 , ¶ 6 No. 25AP-319 7 (8th Dist.), citing Duff v. Coshocton Cty., 2004-Ohio-3713, ¶ 32 (5th Dist.) (describing “[t]he liberal notice pleading of Rule 8(a) [as] the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim”). {¶ 20} In contrast, the federal pleading standard generally requires that a complaint contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as tr | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.