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 1997–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Freeman v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2026Freeman v. Morris, 62 Ohio St.3d 107, 109 (1991).] The Freeman rule is consistent with the general proposition that courts cannot rely on evidence or allegations outside the complaint to decide a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. 2026Freeman v. Morris, 62 Ohio St.3d 107, 109 (1991).] The Freeman rule is consistent with the general proposition that courts cannot rely on evidence or allegations outside the complaint to decide a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. | 2 | 2 |
Freeman v. Todd Deegan Mgt., Inc.green1 sentence2025Inc., 2019-Ohio-1530, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.) (“[u]nder R.C. 1925.02, a small claims court has no jurisdiction to hear Freeman’s claim of perjury”). {¶20} Particularly noteworthy is Lin v. Reid, 11 Ohio App.3d 232 (10th Dist.), in which a counterclaim for libel and slander was filed in the small claims division seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the municipal court. | 1 | 1 |
Jefferson v. Bunting (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2024See, e.g., Jefferson v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 62 , 2014-Ohio-3074 , 14 N.E. 3d 1036, ¶ 10 (citing State ex rel. 2024See, e.g., Jefferson v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 62 , 2014-Ohio-3074 , 14 N.E. 3d 1036, ¶ 10 (citing State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lin v. Reid
green
1 sentence2025Inc., 2019-Ohio-1530, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.) (“[u]nder R.C. 1925.02, a small claims court has no jurisdiction to hear Freeman’s claim of perjury”). {¶20} Particularly noteworthy is Lin v. Reid, 11 Ohio App.3d 232 (10th Dist.), in which a counterclaim for libel and slander was filed in the small claims division seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the municipal court. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Freeman
green
1 sentence2021Neither an array of petit jurors nor a jury’s verdict can be set aside because the jury commissioner has returned such a jury or juror in any informal or irregular manner, “if in the opinion of the court the irregularity is unimportant and insufficient to vitiate the return.” Id. {¶ 15} There is no question that Freeman’s challenge to the jury array was made after the examination of the jurors. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Freeman
neutral
1 sentence2021Cuyahoga No. 104711, 2017-Ohio-1281 , this court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Freeman’s motion to withdraw waiver of jury trial. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Curry
green
2 sentences2005In State v. Curry (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 93 , 96 , 641 N.E.2d 1172 , this court set forth the scope of our review regarding a motion to suppress and stated: "In a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and evaluate witness credibility. 2005In State v. Curry (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 93 , 96 , 641 N.E.2d 1172 , this court set forth the scope of our review regarding a motion to suppress and stated: "In a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and evaluate witness credibility. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Pelunis v. G.M. & M.
green
2 sentences1997The trial court, citing Pelunis v. G.M. & M. (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 194, 195 , 8 OBR 263, 265, 456 N.E.2d 1232, 1234 , found that an order dismissing a case for failure to prosecute is with prejudice unless it states otherwise. 1997The trial court, citing Pelunis v. G.M. & M. (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 194, 195 , 8 OBR 263, 265, 456 N.E.2d 1232, 1234 , found that an order dismissing a case for failure to prosecute is with prejudice unless it states otherwise. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.