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 2002–2024 2 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. Nogglegreen2 sentences2024According to the Ohio Supreme Court, "'the term 'in loco parentis' means 'charged, factitiously, with a parent's rights, duties, and responsibilities.'" State v. Noggle, 67 Ohio St.3d 31, 33 (1993), quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.1990). 2002They rely on State v. Noggle, which held that a “person in loco parentis has assumed the same duties as a guardian or custodian, only not through a legal proceeding.” State v. Noggle (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 31, 33 , 615 N.E.2d 1040 . | 1 | 5 |
Huston v. Koniecznygreen1 sentence2024Clermont No. CA2016-10-070, 2017-Ohio-7804, ¶ 26 , quoting Huston v. Konieczny, 52 Ohio St.3d 214, 217 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Kahrsgreen1 sentence2024Fairfield No. 2003CA00068, 2004-Ohio-1767, ¶ 16 , citing Doe v. Kahrs, 75 Ohio Misc.2d 7, 10 (C.P.1995). {¶ 17} In this case, Baker failed to provide any evidence to indicate Bunker Hill -8- Butler CA2023-08-095 knew its resident, Howard, had a propensity to engage in the unlawful and negligent operation of a motor vehicle after sneaking off its property without its permission. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kaufmangreen2 sentences2023On the contrary, “an adult need not be the child’s parent in order to establish that the child felt obligated to obey him.” State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 2010-Ohio-1536 , 931 N.E.2d 143, ¶ 55 (7th Dist.). 2023On the contrary, “an adult need not be the child’s parent in order to establish that the child felt obligated to obey him.” State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 2010-Ohio-1536 , 931 N.E.2d 143, ¶ 55 (7th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Browngreen1 sentence2018Cf. In re Brown, 153 Wash.2d 646, 652 , 105 P.3d 991, 994 (2005) (wherein the Washington Supreme Court stated that no case in that state “recognizes that nonparents are guaranteed the fundamental rights of parents under the doctrine of in loco parentis.”) Finally, the Ohio Supreme Court has aptly held that any departure from the doctrine of stare decisis demands special justification. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shupe v. Childers, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2004)
neutral
1 sentence2024Fairfield No. 2003CA00068, 2004-Ohio-1767, ¶ 16 , citing Doe v. Kahrs, 75 Ohio Misc.2d 7, 10 (C.P.1995). {¶ 17} In this case, Baker failed to provide any evidence to indicate Bunker Hill -8- Butler CA2023-08-095 knew its resident, Howard, had a propensity to engage in the unlawful and negligent operation of a motor vehicle after sneaking off its property without its permission. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ross v. Wendel
green
1 sentence2024Clermont No. CA2016-10-070, 2017-Ohio-7804, ¶ 26 , quoting Huston v. Konieczny, 52 Ohio St.3d 214, 217 (1990). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rigby v. Lake County
green
2 sentences2023As such, these rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion: “a trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence in any particular case, so long as such discretion is exercised in line with the rules of procedure and evidence.” Rigby v. Lake Cty., 58 Ohio St.3d 269, 271 , 569 N.E.2d 1056 (1991). 2023As such, these rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion: “a trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence in any particular case, so long as such discretion is exercised in line with the rules of procedure and evidence.” Rigby v. Lake Cty., 58 Ohio St.3d 269, 271 , 569 N.E.2d 1056 (1991). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Luby v. Da Silva
green
1 sentence2018Cf. In re Brown, 153 Wash.2d 646, 652 , 105 P.3d 991, 994 (2005) (wherein the Washington Supreme Court stated that no case in that state “recognizes that nonparents are guaranteed the fundamental rights of parents under the doctrine of in loco parentis.”) Finally, the Ohio Supreme Court has aptly held that any departure from the doctrine of stare decisis demands special justification. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.