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.
10 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Irvine v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Bd. of Review, 19 Ohio St.3d 15, 18 (1985) (in applying the threshold just cause test), citing R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a) (not entitled to unemployment if quit without just cause or discharged for just cause). {¶21} The standard of review applicable to unemployment compensation decisions is provided by statute. | 1 | 1 |
Pennington v. Dudleygreen2 sentences1984The Supreme Court has held that “[wjhether work is ‘suitable work’ * * *, will ordinarily be a question of fact for determination by the trier of the facts. * * *” Pennington v. Dudley (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 90, 94-95 [ 39 O.O.2d 94 ], The court should only disturb this trier-determination if it finds as a matter of law the work is “unsuitable.” Id. at 95 . 1984The Supreme Court has held that “[wjhether work is ‘suitable work’ * * *, will ordinarily be a question of fact for determination by the trier of the facts. * * *” Pennington v. Dudley (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 90, 94-95 [ 39 O.O.2d 94 ], The court should only disturb this trier-determination if it finds as a matter of law the work is “unsuitable.” Id. at 95 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boynton v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
green
1 sentence2023Thus, under the just cause standard, “an employee is required to cooperate with the employer to resolve work-related problems. * * * If the employee does not cooperate or give the employer sufficient time to accommodate the employee’s needs [and] concerns, that employee will usually not be found to have just cause if he or she quits.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Boynton v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 10th Dist. No. 21AP-481, 2022-Ohio-2597, ¶ 10 , quoting Watkins v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 10th Dist. No. 06AP-479, 2006-Ohio-6651, ¶ 21 , and Stapleton v. Ohio De | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Stapleton v. Ohio Department of Job & Family Services
green
1 sentence2023Thus, under the just cause standard, “an employee is required to cooperate with the employer to resolve work-related problems. * * * If the employee does not cooperate or give the employer sufficient time to accommodate the employee’s needs [and] concerns, that employee will usually not be found to have just cause if he or she quits.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Boynton v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 10th Dist. No. 21AP-481, 2022-Ohio-2597, ¶ 10 , quoting Watkins v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 10th Dist. No. 06AP-479, 2006-Ohio-6651, ¶ 21 , and Stapleton v. Ohio De | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Watkins v. Dept. of Job Family Servs., Unpublished Decision (12-14-2006)
green
1 sentence2023Thus, under the just cause standard, “an employee is required to cooperate with the employer to resolve work-related problems. * * * If the employee does not cooperate or give the employer sufficient time to accommodate the employee’s needs [and] concerns, that employee will usually not be found to have just cause if he or she quits.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Boynton v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 10th Dist. No. 21AP-481, 2022-Ohio-2597, ¶ 10 , quoting Watkins v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 10th Dist. No. 06AP-479, 2006-Ohio-6651, ¶ 21 , and Stapleton v. Ohio De | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Cleveland v. Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Assn.
green
2 sentences2018Cleveland v. Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Assn. , 2016-Ohio-702 , 47 N.E.3d 904 , ¶ 34 (8th Dist.). 2018Cleveland v. Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Assn., 2016-Ohio-702 , 47 N.E.3d 904 , ¶ 34 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 627
green
2 sentences2017They also claim that Articles 4.01 and 10 of the CBA, which permit the department to develop work rules and require OPBA members to comply with them, do not incorporate the matrix into the CBA, and they analogize this case to Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 627, 91 Ohio St.3d 108 , 742 N.E.2d 630 (2001) (“SORTA ”). 2017They also claim that Articles 4.01 and 10 of the CBA, which permit the department to develop work rules and require OPBA members to comply with them, do not incorporate the matrix into the CBA, and they analogize this case to Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 627, 91 Ohio St.3d 108 , 742 N.E.2d 630 (2001) (“SORTA ”). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Summit County Children Services Board v. Communication Workers of America, Local 4546
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 295 , 2007-Ohio-1949 , 865 N.E.2d 31 . {¶ 21} Labor arbitration decisions over many decades have defined the criteria to be used when evaluating whether discharge for insubordination meets the just cause standard. 2017Id. at 295 , 2007-Ohio-1949 , 865 N.E.2d 31 . {¶ 21} Labor arbitration decisions over many decades have defined the criteria to be used when evaluating whether discharge for insubordination meets the just cause standard. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Oszust
green
1 sentence2000Quarto Mining Co. v. Adams (December 21, 1988) Monroe App. No. 777, unreported, 3, citing Youghiogheny Ohio Coal Co. v. Oszust (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 39 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ohio Office of Collective Bargaining v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n, Local 11
green
2 sentences1997Id. at 184 , 572 N.E.2d at 77-78 . 1997Id. at 184 , 572 N.E.2d at 77-78 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Local Union No. 200, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers
green
2 sentences1991An arbitrator’s authority “ * * * is limited to that granted him by the contracting parties, and does not extend to the determination of the wisdom or legality of the bargain. ' * * * [A]n arbitrator is confined to interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement; he does not sit to dispense his own brand of industrial justice. * * * Goodyear, supra, 42 Ohio St.2d at 519 , 71 O.O.2d at 511 , 330 N.E.2d at 706 . 1991An arbitrator’s authority “ * * * is limited to that granted him by the contracting parties, and does not extend to the determination of the wisdom or legality of the bargain. ' * * * [A]n arbitrator is confined to interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement; he does not sit to dispense his own brand of industrial justice. * * * Goodyear, supra, 42 Ohio St.2d at 519 , 71 O.O.2d at 511 , 330 N.E.2d at 706 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co.
green
1 sentence1989However, Chief Justice Celebrezze noted, at 103-105, 19 OBR at 264-65, 483 N.E.2d at 154 -155: “In Henkel [v. Educ. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.