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 1 courts 1990–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hoover v. Sumlingreen2 sentences2023Case No. L-23-1108 –7– {¶26} In Hoover v. Sumlin, 12 Ohio St.3d 1, 6 , 465 N.E.2d 377 (1984), the Ohio Supreme Court found the “Appellants were not prejudiced by the addition of the * * * defense [because] they faced no obstacles by the amendment which they would not have faced had the original pleading raised the defense.” Id. at 6 . 2023Case No. L-23-1108 –7– {¶26} In Hoover v. Sumlin, 12 Ohio St.3d 1, 6 , 465 N.E.2d 377 (1984), the Ohio Supreme Court found the “Appellants were not prejudiced by the addition of the * * * defense [because] they faced no obstacles by the amendment which they would not have faced had the original pleading raised the defense.” Id. at 6 . | 2 | 7 |
Peterson v. Teodosiogreen1 sentence2002See Peterson v. Teodosio (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 161 . {¶ 18} The appellants are in no way prejudiced by the addition of the defense as they face no new hurdle which they would not have faced had the original pleading raised the defense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||