8 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Helms v. James Dickey Post No. 23, American Legion, Inc.green2 sentences1999In Helms v. American Legion, Inc. (1966), 5 Ohio St.2d 60 , the Supreme Court extended the Kimball rule to privately owned premises. 1999In Helms v. American Legion, Inc. (1966), 5 Ohio St.2d 60 , the Supreme Court extended the Kimball rule to privately owned premises. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cash v. City of Cincinnati
green
2 sentences2000We explained the Kimball rule, on which the trial court based summary judgment, in Acord v. Speedee Centers South, Inc. (May 7, 1997), Scioto App. No. 96CA2450, unreported, by stating: We have, on prior occasions, visited the issue of liability for so-called "sidewalk deviations" see Sheets v. Bd. of Comm. of Scioto Co. (Dec. 22, 1992), Scioto App. No. 2051, unreported (Stephenson, J., concurring); Ballein v. City of Hillsboro (Dec. 7, 1995), Highland App. No. 95CA872, unreported; Scalf v. Heilig-Meyers Furniture (Aug. 8, 1996), Scioto App. No. 95CA2399, unreported, consistently applying what 2000We explained the Kimball rule, on which the trial court based summary judgment, in Acord v. Speedee Centers South, Inc. (May 7, 1997), Scioto App. No. 96CA2450, unreported, by stating: We have, on prior occasions, visited the issue of liability for so-called "sidewalk deviations" see Sheets v. Bd. of Comm. of Scioto Co. (Dec. 22, 1992), Scioto App. No. 2051, unreported (Stephenson, J., concurring); Ballein v. City of Hillsboro (Dec. 7, 1995), Highland App. No. 95CA872, unreported; Scalf v. Heilig-Meyers Furniture (Aug. 8, 1996), Scioto App. No. 95CA2399, unreported, consistently applying what | 4 | 1987–2006 |
Jenks v. Barberton, Unpublished Decision (3-9-2005)
green
1 sentence2008No. 22300, 2005-Ohio-995 , at ¶ 16 , quoting McGuire v. Sears, Roebuck Co. (1996), 118 Ohio App.3d 494 , 499 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
McGuire v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
green
1 sentence2008No. 22300, 2005-Ohio-995 , at ¶ 16 , quoting McGuire v. Sears, Roebuck Co. (1996), 118 Ohio App.3d 494 , 499 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Stockhauser v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati
green
2 sentences1998In McGuire v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., this court held: “[T]he modern formulation of the ‘Kimball rule’ [is] a presumption that height differences on public or private sidewalks of two inches or less are insubstantial or trivial as a matter of law, absent evidence of other ‘attendant circumstances’ making the difference in elevation unreasonably [un]safe. * * * “[T]here is no precise definition of ‘attendant circumstances,’ but they generally ' include ‘ “any distraction that would come to the attention of a pedestrian in the same circumstances and reduce the degree of care an ordinary person wou 1998In McGuire v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., this court held: “[T]he modern formulation of the ‘Kimball rule’ [is] a presumption that height differences on public or private sidewalks of two inches or less are insubstantial or trivial as a matter of law, absent evidence of other ‘attendant circumstances’ making the difference in elevation unreasonably [un]safe. * * * “[T]here is no precise definition of ‘attendant circumstances,’ but they generally ' include ‘ “any distraction that would come to the attention of a pedestrian in the same circumstances and reduce the degree of care an ordinary person wou | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.