8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vance v. Roedersheimergreen2 sentences2020See Vance v. Roedersheimer, 64 Ohio St.3d 552, 556 , 597 N.E.2d 153 (1992) (holding that a local court rule does not constitute “statutory authorization” for an award of attorney fees). {¶ 10} The Ohio Department of Transportation promulgated Ohio Adm.Code 5501:2-5-06(G)(3) pursuant to R.C. 163.58. 2020See Vance v. Roedersheimer, 64 Ohio St.3d 552, 556 , 597 N.E.2d 153 (1992) (holding that a local court rule does not constitute “statutory authorization” for an award of attorney fees). {¶ 10} The Ohio Department of Transportation promulgated Ohio Adm.Code 5501:2-5-06(G)(3) pursuant to R.C. 163.58. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Conleygreen2 sentences2011See Smith v. Conley, 109 Ohio St.3d 141 , 2006-Ohio-2035 , 846 N.E.2d 509, at ¶ 6-7 . 2011See Smith v. Conley, 109 Ohio St.3d 141 , 2006-Ohio-2035 , 846 N.E.2d 509, at ¶ 6-7 . | 1 | 1 |
Ohio Furniture Co. v. Mindalagreen2 sentences2008See Ohio Furniture Co. v. Mindala (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 99 , 101 , 488 N.E.2d 881 , 883 ("A dismissal on the merits is a harsh remedy that calls for the due process guarantee of prior notice."). 2008See Ohio Furniture Co. v. Mindala (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 99 , 101 , 488 N.E.2d 881 , 883 ("A dismissal on the merits is a harsh remedy that calls for the due process guarantee of prior notice."). | 1 | 1 |
Lambdin v. Knottgreen1 sentence2000See Lambdin v. Knott (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 606 , 607 , construing Civ.R. 3(A) and Shelby Cty. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Perotti v. Ferguson
green
2 sentences2006Id. at 3 , 454 N.E.2d 951 ." {¶ 32} See also, Zils v. Hinton (July 12, 2000), Stark App. No. 2000CA00095. {¶ 33} So, in this case, a local court rule is absent as to authorization for the action taken, no judgment entry providing for such was issued, and no opportunity to respond was provided. 2006Id. at 3 , 454 N.E.2d 951 ." {¶ 32} See also, Zils v. Hinton (July 12, 2000), Stark App. No. 2000CA00095. {¶ 33} So, in this case, a local court rule is absent as to authorization for the action taken, no judgment entry providing for such was issued, and no opportunity to respond was provided. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Hooten v. Safe Auto Insurance
green
1 sentence2004Co., 100 Ohio St.3d 8 , 2003-Ohio-4829 , 795 N.E.2d 648 , syallabus, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a trial court need not notify the parties of the date of consideration of a summary judgment motion or the deadlines for submitting briefs and Civ.R. 56 materials, i.e. the date of the non-oral hearing, if a local court rule provides sufficient notice of the hearing date or submission deadlines. {¶ 11} Here, the trial court set a non-oral hearing date approximately thirty days after the summary judgment motion was filed, but the local rules allowed Mrs. Zealey only seven days to respond to the | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State ex rel. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers v. Gosser
green
2 sentences1989Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, v. Gosser (1985), 20 Ohio St. 3d 30 , 20 OBR 279, 485 N.E. 2d 706 , in deciding whether a writ of mandamus should issue to compel a clerk of a municipal court to make available to the public portions of files containing information pertaining to cases involving accusations of operating motor vehicles while intoxicated. 2 The writ of mandamus had been sought in the appropriate court of appeals and had been refused because, under a local court rule, the clerk was ho longer the keeper of the requested files. 1989Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, v. Gosser (1985), 20 Ohio St. 3d 30 , 20 OBR 279, 485 N.E. 2d 706 , in deciding whether a writ of mandamus should issue to compel a clerk of a municipal court to make available to the public portions of files containing information pertaining to cases involving accusations of operating motor vehicles while intoxicated. 2 The writ of mandamus had been sought in the appropriate court of appeals and had been refused because, under a local court rule, the clerk was ho longer the keeper of the requested files. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Krupansky v. Pascual
green
2 sentences1987The only case to which we have been cited which comes even near to treating the central issue of timeliness of the nonacceptance (not rejection) of an arbitration award is the case of Krupansky v. Pascual (1985), 27 Ohio App. 3d 90 , 27 OBR 110, 499 N.E. 2d 899 , wherein the appellate court held a similar thirty-day provision of a local court rule dealing with “appeal” from an arbitration award inconsistent with former R.C. 2711.21. 1987The only case to which we have been cited which comes even near to treating the central issue of timeliness of the nonacceptance (not rejection) of an arbitration award is the case of Krupansky v. Pascual (1985), 27 Ohio App. 3d 90 , 27 OBR 110, 499 N.E. 2d 899 , wherein the appellate court held a similar thirty-day provision of a local court rule dealing with “appeal” from an arbitration award inconsistent with former R.C. 2711.21. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.