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 1937–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re GAULTgreen2 sentences2017See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 541-543 , 91 S.Ct. 1976 , 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971) (plurality opinion), citing In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). 2017See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 541-543 , 91 S.Ct. 1976 , 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971) (plurality opinion), citing In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
McKeiver v. Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences2017See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 541-543 , 91 S.Ct. 1976 , 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971) (plurality opinion), citing In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). 2017See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 541-543 , 91 S.Ct. 1976 , 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971) (plurality opinion), citing In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
In Re WINSHIPgreen2 sentences2017See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 541-543 , 91 S.Ct. 1976 , 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971) (plurality opinion), citing In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). 2017See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 541-543 , 91 S.Ct. 1976 , 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971) (plurality opinion), citing In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Knecht v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
green
2 sentences2010Knecht v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1992), 78 Ohio App. 3d 360, 365 ; Upjohn Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Human Services (1991), 77 Ohio App. 3d 827, 834 . 2010Knecht v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1992), 78 Ohio App. 3d 360, 365 ; Upjohn Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Human Services (1991), 77 Ohio App. 3d 827, 834 . | 4 | 2010–2010 |
Upjohn Co. v. Ohio Department of Human Services
green
2 sentences2010Knecht v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1992), 78 Ohio App. 3d 360, 365 ; Upjohn Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Human Services (1991), 77 Ohio App. 3d 827, 834 . 2010Knecht v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1992), 78 Ohio App. 3d 360, 365 ; Upjohn Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Human Services (1991), 77 Ohio App. 3d 827, 834 . | 4 | 2010–2010 |
City of Toledo v. Tellings
green
2 sentences2017Yet, rather than analyze the challenge under traditional substantive-due-process norms—asking whether the restriction was rationally related to a legitimate legislative interest, see, e.g., Toledo v. Telling, 114 Ohio St.3d 278 , 2007-Ohio-3724 , 871 N.E.2d 1152 , ¶ 33—the court analyzed the enactment under a principle of fundamental fairness. {¶ 43} Heretofore, the fundamental-fairness standard had always been a procedural standard—one developed by the United States Supreme Court in assessing the adequacy of procedures employed in juvenile proceedings. 2017Yet, rather than analyze the challenge under traditional substantive-due-process norms—asking whether the restriction was rationally related to a legitimate legislative interest, see, e.g., Toledo v. Telling, 114 Ohio St.3d 278 , 2007-Ohio-3724 , 871 N.E.2d 1152 , ¶ 33—the court analyzed the enactment under a principle of fundamental fairness. {¶ 43} Heretofore, the fundamental-fairness standard had always been a procedural standard—one developed by the United States Supreme Court in assessing the adequacy of procedures employed in juvenile proceedings. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Samuels
neutral
1 sentence1970United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Samuels (1927), 116 Ohio St. 586 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Central Pasto Viejo, Inc. v. Barnes
neutral
1 sentence1937The Legislature cannot lawfully commute the taxes on property which it cannot lawfully exempt in consideration of certain services to be performed for the stat¿ (Hogg, Recr., v. Mackay, Sheriff, 23 Ore., 339 , 31 P., 779 ), nor can it authorize the local authorities to abate taxes after they have been assessed in a case in which it could not lawfully grant an exemption. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Hogg v. Mackay
neutral
1 sentence1937The Legislature cannot lawfully commute the taxes on property which it cannot lawfully exempt in consideration of certain services to be performed for the stat¿ (Hogg, Recr., v. Mackay, Sheriff, 23 Ore., 339 , 31 P., 779 ), nor can it authorize the local authorities to abate taxes after they have been assessed in a case in which it could not lawfully grant an exemption. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.