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 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co.green2 sentences2000However, in Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 100 , 104-105 , 19 OBR 261, 264-265, 483 N.E.2d 150 , 154-155 , we first recognized the harshness of this rule and carved out two exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine: (1) the existence of implied or express contractual provisions which alter the terms of discharge; and (2) the existence of promissory estoppel where representations or promises have been made to an employee. 2000However, in Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 100 , 104-105 , 19 OBR 261, 264-265, 483 N.E.2d 150 , 154-155 , we first recognized the harshness of this rule and carved out two exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine: (1) the existence of implied or express contractual provisions which alter the terms of discharge; and (2) the existence of promissory estoppel where representations or promises have been made to an employee. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Spensley Feeds, Inc. v. Livingston Feed & Lumber, Inc.
green
2 sentences1992Divisibility is a general technique by which a court can mitigate the harshness of a rule that bars a party from enforcing an agreement by apportioning the performances into corresponding pairs of part performances and then enforcing the agreement as to only one part; additionally, the issue of whether an agreement is divisible is a question of law. *513 Spensley Feeds, Inc. v. Livingston Feed & Lumber, Inc. (App.1985), 128 Wis.2d 279 , 381 N.W.2d 601, 604 . 1992Divisibility is a general technique by which a court can mitigate the harshness of a rule that bars a party from enforcing an agreement by apportioning the performances into corresponding pairs of part performances and then enforcing the agreement as to only one part; additionally, the issue of whether an agreement is divisible is a question of law. *513 Spensley Feeds, Inc. v. Livingston Feed & Lumber, Inc. (App.1985), 128 Wis.2d 279 , 381 N.W.2d 601, 604 . | 3 | 1992–2017 |
National Tube Co. v. Ayres
green
2 sentences2017Tube Co. v. Ayres, 152 Ohio St. 255 , 89 N.E.2d 129 (1949), paragraph one of the syllabus (“The Board of Tax Appeals has control over its decisions until the actual institution of an appeal or the expiration of the time for an appeal”). {¶ 14} As explained below, the harshness of this rule is tempered by the fact that the BTA’s failure to transmit a decision to a person entitled to notice under R.C. 5717.03(B) tolls that person’s appeal period, thereby permitting the BTA to grant a timely motion to vacate. 2017Tube Co. v. Ayres, 152 Ohio St. 255 , 89 N.E.2d 129 (1949), paragraph one of the syllabus (“The Board of Tax Appeals has control over its decisions until the actual institution of an appeal or the expiration of the time for an appeal”). {¶ 14} As explained below, the harshness of this rule is tempered by the fact that the BTA’s failure to transmit a decision to a person entitled to notice under R.C. 5717.03(B) tolls that person’s appeal period, thereby permitting the BTA to grant a timely motion to vacate. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Depugh v. Mead Corp.
green
1 sentence2001In DePugh v. Mead Corp. (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 503 , 512-13 , the court stated: "Divisibility is a general technique by which a court can mitigate the harshness of a rule that bars a party from enforcing an agreement by apportioning the performances into corresponding pairs of part performances and then enforcing the agreement as to only one part; additionally, the issue of whether an agreement is divisible is a question of law. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.