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 2004–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hesslergreen1 sentence2017“The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the jury room and the deliberations therein.” (Emphasis omitted.) State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108, 123 (2000). {¶9} The trial court held a hearing on Richardson’s motion for a new trial, but it was limited to arguments by both sides on their written filings. | 1 | 1 |
Olympic Holding Co., L.L.C. v. ACE Ltd.green2 sentences2016Hale v. Volunteers of Am., 158 Ohio App.3d 415 , 2004-Ohio- 4508, 816 N.E.2d 259, ¶ 50 (1st Dist.); see Olympic Holding Co., L.L.C. v. ACE Ltd., 122 Ohio St.3d 89 , 2009-Ohio-2057 , 909 N.E.2d 93, ¶ 39 . {¶48} Although Richardson alleged that he was employed by the defendants, we know from the service agreement that Clinical Computing PLC was Richardson’s sole employer and that all other agreements and arrangements between Richardson and members of the “Group” were cancelled. 2016Hale v. Volunteers of Am., 158 Ohio App.3d 415 , 2004-Ohio- 4508, 816 N.E.2d 259, ¶ 50 (1st Dist.); see Olympic Holding Co., L.L.C. v. ACE Ltd., 122 Ohio St.3d 89 , 2009-Ohio-2057 , 909 N.E.2d 93, ¶ 39 . {¶48} Although Richardson alleged that he was employed by the defendants, we know from the service agreement that Clinical Computing PLC was Richardson’s sole employer and that all other agreements and arrangements between Richardson and members of the “Group” were cancelled. | 1 | 1 |
Hale v. Volunteers of Americagreen2 sentences2016Hale v. Volunteers of Am., 158 Ohio App.3d 415 , 2004-Ohio- 4508, 816 N.E.2d 259, ¶ 50 (1st Dist.); see Olympic Holding Co., L.L.C. v. ACE Ltd., 122 Ohio St.3d 89 , 2009-Ohio-2057 , 909 N.E.2d 93, ¶ 39 . {¶48} Although Richardson alleged that he was employed by the defendants, we know from the service agreement that Clinical Computing PLC was Richardson’s sole employer and that all other agreements and arrangements between Richardson and members of the “Group” were cancelled. 2016Hale v. Volunteers of Am., 158 Ohio App.3d 415 , 2004-Ohio- 4508, 816 N.E.2d 259, ¶ 50 (1st Dist.); see Olympic Holding Co., L.L.C. v. ACE Ltd., 122 Ohio St.3d 89 , 2009-Ohio-2057 , 909 N.E.2d 93, ¶ 39 . {¶48} Although Richardson alleged that he was employed by the defendants, we know from the service agreement that Clinical Computing PLC was Richardson’s sole employer and that all other agreements and arrangements between Richardson and members of the “Group” were cancelled. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Langgreen1 sentence2014Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512, at ¶ 45 (assertion that the defendant did not know who testified during the grand jury or what they said provides no excuse for failing to establish a particularized need). {¶31} Moreover, although not part of this appeal, Richardson’s motion to dismiss is relevant to our discussion because it also demonstrates regularity of the grand jury proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2008See Richardson, 526 U.S. at 818-819 , 119 S.Ct. 1707 , 143 L.Ed.2d 985 . 2008See Richardson, 526 U.S. at 818-819 , 119 S.Ct. 1707 , 143 L.Ed.2d 985 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Perrygreen2 sentences2004See State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175 , 226 N.E.2d 104 . 2004See State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175 , 226 N.E.2d 104 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co. (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2017However, as noted by Ohio Supreme Court, "in construing a statute, [a court] may not add or delete words." In re Application of Columbus Southern Power Co, 147 Ohio St.3d 439 , 2016- Ohio-1608, ¶ 49. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State ex rel. White v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority
green
1 sentence2012Auth., 79 Ohio St.3d 543, 544 , 684 N.E.2d 72 (1997). {¶ 9} First, the State claims that the trial court’s denial of Richardson’s motion to quash was not a final, appealable order. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth District Court of Appeals
green
1 sentence2012Court of Appeals (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 532, 534 , 696 N.E.2d 1079 . *122 Motion to Strike {¶ 10} Johnson moves to strike Richardson’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State ex rel. Tate v. Trimble
green
1 sentence2012Court of Appeals (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 532, 534 , 696 N.E.2d 1079 . *122 Motion to Strike {¶ 10} Johnson moves to strike Richardson’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.