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 1 courts 1961–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Collier v. Northland Swim Clubgreen2 sentences1998See Collier v. Northland Swim Club (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 35, 39 , 518 N.E.2d 1226, 1229-1230 (contributory negligence is generally an issue of fact unless the evidence shows that the plaintiffs negligence was so extreme as a matter of law that no reasonable person could conclude that the plaintiff was entitled to recover). 1998See Collier v. Northland Swim Club (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 35, 39 , 518 N.E.2d 1226, 1229-1230 (contributory negligence is generally an issue of fact unless the evidence shows that the plaintiffs negligence was so extreme as a matter of law that no reasonable person could conclude that the plaintiff was entitled to recover). | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared1 sentence1990See Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18, 52 , footnote 7. | 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. Foster
green
2 sentences2007SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶ 21} “The trial court erred as a matter of law in violation of Mr. Gillespie’s Sixth Amendment rights when it imposed a consecutive sentence based on judicially determined facts.” {¶ 22} Citing State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , and Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 , defendant argues that his Sixth Amendment right to jury trial was violated in this case because the trial court imposed consecutive sentences based upon findings of fact made by the trial court pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) 2007SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶ 21} “The trial court erred as a matter of law in violation of Mr. Gillespie’s Sixth Amendment rights when it imposed a consecutive sentence based on judicially determined facts.” {¶ 22} Citing State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , and Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 , defendant argues that his Sixth Amendment right to jury trial was violated in this case because the trial court imposed consecutive sentences based upon findings of fact made by the trial court pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) | 2 | 2007–2007 |
O'Toole v. Denihan
green
2 sentences2017The court in Kurz went on to quote the more recent Ohio Supreme Court case of O'Toole v. Denihan , 118 Ohio St.3d 374 , 2008-Ohio-2574 , 889 N.E.2d 505 , paragraph 3 of syllabus, wherein, the court expressed that "recklessness is a perverse disregard of a known risk. 2017The court in Kurz went on to quote the more recent Ohio Supreme Court case of O'Tool v. Donihan, 118 Ohio St. 3d 374 , 2008-Ohio-2574 , paragraph 3 of syllabus, wherein, the court expressed that "recklessness is a perverse disregard of a known risk. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2007SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶ 21} “The trial court erred as a matter of law in violation of Mr. Gillespie’s Sixth Amendment rights when it imposed a consecutive sentence based on judicially determined facts.” {¶ 22} Citing State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , and Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 , defendant argues that his Sixth Amendment right to jury trial was violated in this case because the trial court imposed consecutive sentences based upon findings of fact made by the trial court pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) 2007SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶ 21} “The trial court erred as a matter of law in violation of Mr. Gillespie’s Sixth Amendment rights when it imposed a consecutive sentence based on judicially determined facts.” {¶ 22} Citing State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , and Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 , defendant argues that his Sixth Amendment right to jury trial was violated in this case because the trial court imposed consecutive sentences based upon findings of fact made by the trial court pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Mathis
green
2 sentences2007At oral argument, Hall waived this assignment of error. {¶ 42} Because Hall has waived this argument, because the sentence imposed was within the statutory provisions for the crimes of which Hall was convicted, and because on independent review we determine that the sentencing herein was imposed consistent with the mandates of State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 845 N.E.2d 470, 2006-Ohio-856 and State v. Mathis , 109 Ohio St.3d 54 , 846 N.E.2d 1 , 2006-Ohio-855 , we overrule Hall's fourth assignment of error. {¶ 43} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas 2007At oral argument, Hall waived this assignment of error. {¶ 42} Because Hall has waived this argument, because the sentence imposed was within the statutory provisions for the crimes of which Hall was convicted, and because on independent review we determine that the sentencing herein was imposed consistent with the mandates of State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 845 N.E.2d 470, 2006-Ohio-856 and State v. Mathis , 109 Ohio St.3d 54 , 846 N.E.2d 1 , 2006-Ohio-855 , we overrule Hall's fourth assignment of error. {¶ 43} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Cremeans v. Willmar Henderson Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences1993Co. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 145 , 566 N.E.2d 1203 , syllabus, wherein the court stated: “An employee does not voluntarily or unreasonably assume the risk of injury which occurs in the course of his or her employment when that risk must be encountered in the normal performance of his or her required job duties and responsibilities.” In Cremeans , the plaintiff brought a products liability action against the manufacturer of a loader which plaintiff regularly used during the course of his employment. 1993Co. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 145 , 566 N.E.2d 1203 , syllabus, wherein the court stated: “An employee does not voluntarily or unreasonably assume the risk of injury which occurs in the course of his or her employment when that risk must be encountered in the normal performance of his or her required job duties and responsibilities.” In Cremeans , the plaintiff brought a products liability action against the manufacturer of a loader which plaintiff regularly used during the course of his employment. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Termuhlen, Admr. v. Campbell
neutral
1 sentence1961And, in the ease of Termuhlen, Admr., v. Campbell, 38 Ohio Law Abs., 33 , the second paragraph of the headnotes reads: “2. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.