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.
7 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2022 3 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. Whitegreen2 sentences2019E.g., White, 142 Ohio St. 3d 277 , 2015-Ohio-492, 29 N.E.3d 939 , at ¶ 29-34 (applying the absurdity doctrine to recognize a substantive exception to a statutory firearm specification). 2019E.g., White, 142 Ohio St. 3d 277 , 2015-Ohio-492, 29 N.E.3d 939 , at ¶ 29-34 (applying the absurdity doctrine to recognize a substantive exception to a statutory firearm specification). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Sorrellgreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., In re Sorrell, 359 B.R. 167, 174 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2007) (recognizing the “scrivener’s error exception” and “the absurdity doctrine” as distinct exceptions to the doctrine of strict construction). | 1 | 1 |
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnsongreen2 sentences2020Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 , 2007-Ohio-6948 , 880 N.E.2d 420 , ¶ 113 (“the General Assembly is responsible for * * * making policy decisions”). {¶ 16} Meyer has repeatedly conceded that he has no legal basis beyond the absurdity doctrine to challenge the board’s decision to place the measures on the ballot. 2020Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 , 2007-Ohio-6948 , 880 N.E.2d 420 , ¶ 113 (“the General Assembly is responsible for * * * making policy decisions”). {¶ 16} Meyer has repeatedly conceded that he has no legal basis beyond the absurdity doctrine to challenge the board’s decision to place the measures on the ballot. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Parker (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022The doctrine does not include substantive errors arising from a drafter’s failure to appreciate the effect of certain provisions.’ ” 17 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO (Ellipsis added in Parker.) Id., quoting State v. Parker, 157 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2019-Ohio-3848 , 137 N.E.3d 1151 , ¶ 28 (lead opinion), quoting Scalia & Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 238 (2012). {¶ 35} The absurdity doctrine does not apply here. 2022The doctrine does not include substantive errors arising from a drafter’s failure to appreciate the effect of certain provisions.’ ” 17 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO (Ellipsis added in Parker.) Id., quoting State v. Parker, 157 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2019-Ohio-3848 , 137 N.E.3d 1151 , ¶ 28 (lead opinion), quoting Scalia & Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 238 (2012). {¶ 35} The absurdity doctrine does not apply here. | 4 | 2020–2022 |
State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner's Office (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022The doctrine does not include substantive errors arising from a drafter’s failure to appreciate the effect of certain provisions.’ ” 17 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO (Ellipsis added in Parker.) Id., quoting State v. Parker, 157 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2019-Ohio-3848 , 137 N.E.3d 1151 , ¶ 28 (lead opinion), quoting Scalia & Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 238 (2012). {¶ 35} The absurdity doctrine does not apply here. 2022The doctrine does not include substantive errors arising from a drafter’s failure to appreciate the effect of certain provisions.’ ” 17 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO (Ellipsis added in Parker.) Id., quoting State v. Parker, 157 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2019-Ohio-3848 , 137 N.E.3d 1151 , ¶ 28 (lead opinion), quoting Scalia & Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 238 (2012). {¶ 35} The absurdity doctrine does not apply here. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020The hallmark of the “scrivener’s error” exception is that “the meaning genuinely intended but inadequately expressed must be absolutely clear[] otherwise we might be rewriting the statute rather than correcting a technical mistake.” United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 82 , 115 S.Ct. 464 , 130 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting). {¶ 34} Although it did not use the exact phrase “scrivener’s error,” the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized it as an exception to strict statutory construction in Stanton v. Frankel Bros. 2020The hallmark of the “scrivener’s error” exception is that “the meaning genuinely intended but inadequately expressed must be absolutely clear[] otherwise we might be rewriting the statute rather than correcting a technical mistake.” United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 82 , 115 S.Ct. 464 , 130 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting). {¶ 34} Although it did not use the exact phrase “scrivener’s error,” the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized it as an exception to strict statutory construction in Stanton v. Frankel Bros. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Pelfrey
green
2 sentences2019But by the first dissent’s own admission in resorting to the absurdity doctrine, R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) is unambiguous, and to construe what is already plain and unambiguous is legislation, not statutory construction, State v. Pelfrey, 112 Ohio St. 3d 422 , 2007-Ohio-256, 860 N.E.2d 735 , ¶ 11. 2019But by the first dissent’s own admission in resorting to the absurdity doctrine, R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) is unambiguous, and to construe what is already plain and unambiguous is legislation, not statutory construction, State v. Pelfrey, 112 Ohio St. 3d 422 , 2007-Ohio-256, 860 N.E.2d 735 , ¶ 11. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.