7 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250 , 2022-Ohio-1878 , 198 N.E.3d 68, ¶ 22 . 2023See State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250 , 2022-Ohio-1878 , 198 N.E.3d 68, ¶ 22 . | 1 | 1 |
Batson v. Kentuckygreen1 sentence2016See also Batson, 476 U.S. at 97 (the defendant can also use the number of challenges to minorities to bolster his prima facie case). {¶32} Related to this argument, Appellant’s second assignment of error claims the court considered impermissible factors. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wertz v. Wertz, H-06-036 (9-7-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2016No. H-06-036, 2007-Ohio-4605 , - 10 - Mrs. Wertz was injured in an accident while she was a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by her husband. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Snyder v. American Family Insurance Co., Unpublished Decision (12-20-2005)
neutral
1 sentence2007Co. , Franklin App. No. 05AP-116, 2005-Ohio-6751 , at ¶ 22 , appeal allowed, 109 Ohio St.3d 1455 , 847 N.E.2d 5 , 2006-Ohio-2226 . {¶ 20} Thus, simply because the statute does not list the exception that appellee seeks to enforce in the case at bar does not mean that it constitutes an impermissible exception. "[The] exclusion can be enforced to deny UM coverage because the current UM statute, unlike former versions of the statute, eliminates the mandatory offering of UM coverage and expressly allows insurers to include terms and conditions in UM policies that preclude *Page 12 coverage." Kelly | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Fisher
green
1 sentence2007Co. , Franklin App. No. 05AP-116, 2005-Ohio-6751 , at ¶ 22 , appeal allowed, 109 Ohio St.3d 1455 , 847 N.E.2d 5 , 2006-Ohio-2226 . {¶ 20} Thus, simply because the statute does not list the exception that appellee seeks to enforce in the case at bar does not mean that it constitutes an impermissible exception. "[The] exclusion can be enforced to deny UM coverage because the current UM statute, unlike former versions of the statute, eliminates the mandatory offering of UM coverage and expressly allows insurers to include terms and conditions in UM policies that preclude *Page 12 coverage." Kelly | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Burk
green
2 sentences2007Co. , Franklin App. No. 05AP-116, 2005-Ohio-6751 , at ¶ 22 , appeal allowed, 109 Ohio St.3d 1455 , 847 N.E.2d 5 , 2006-Ohio-2226 . {¶ 20} Thus, simply because the statute does not list the exception that appellee seeks to enforce in the case at bar does not mean that it constitutes an impermissible exception. "[The] exclusion can be enforced to deny UM coverage because the current UM statute, unlike former versions of the statute, eliminates the mandatory offering of UM coverage and expressly allows insurers to include terms and conditions in UM policies that preclude *Page 12 coverage." Kelly 2007Co. , Franklin App. No. 05AP-116, 2005-Ohio-6751 , at ¶ 22 , appeal allowed, 109 Ohio St.3d 1455 , 847 N.E.2d 5 , 2006-Ohio-2226 . {¶ 20} Thus, simply because the statute does not list the exception that appellee seeks to enforce in the case at bar does not mean that it constitutes an impermissible exception. "[The] exclusion can be enforced to deny UM coverage because the current UM statute, unlike former versions of the statute, eliminates the mandatory offering of UM coverage and expressly allows insurers to include terms and conditions in UM policies that preclude *Page 12 coverage." Kelly | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Sandstrom v. Montana
green
1 sentence2001Contrary to defendant's contentions, such a determination is not inconsistent with Sandstrom v. Montana (1979), 442 U.S. 510 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Eddie D. Smith v. Department of Justice
green
1 sentence1999Although the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ultimately held that Tilberry's conduct involved a permissible thought process, rather than an impermissible violation of a discovery order, id., its judgment did not mean that defendants lacked a reasonable ground of suspicion for their allegation. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
New York v. Quarles
green
1 sentence1999In New York v. Quarles (1984), 467 U.S. 649 , the police apprehended a rape suspect and discovered he was wearing an empty shoulder holster. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.