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 1992–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re C.C.green2 sentences2021However, “substantial compliance with a case plan” is not, in and of itself, “dispositive” and “does not preclude a grant of permanent custody to a social services agency.” In re J.B., 2013- Ohio-1704, at ¶ 90, citing In re C.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-780 , 932 N.E.2d 360, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.). 2021However, “substantial compliance with a case plan” is not, in and of itself, “dispositive” and “does not preclude a grant of permanent custody to a social services agency.” In re J.B., 2013- Ohio-1704, at ¶ 90, citing In re C.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-780 , 932 N.E.2d 360, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Foremangreen2 sentences2021See id. 2021See id. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lopezgreen1 sentence2018See People v. Lopez, 97 P.3d 223 (Colo.App.Div.A 2004); Doyle v. State, 2009 Ark.App. 94 , 302 S.W.3d 607 (Div.2). {¶10} The record in this matter indicates that on September13, 2017, the trial court imposed a ten-day sentence, and stated that this is “a gift because I could be giving you six months * * * ten days then you can go on about your business.” This sentence was clearly a sentence for the underlying offense and not simply a deferred judgment violation. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2012Montgomery No. 24077, 2011-Ohio-3275, ¶ 12 (noting that Evid.R. 803(6) had an authentication requirement that must be met before the rule applies). {¶ 18} In Royse, we addressed the admissibility of a firefighter’s positive drug test results in a hearing before the Civil Service Board, which had chosen to follow the Ohio Rules of Evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doyle v. State
green
2 sentences2018See People v. Lopez, 97 P.3d 223 (Colo.App.Div.A 2004); Doyle v. State, 2009 Ark.App. 94 , 302 S.W.3d 607 (Div.2). {¶10} The record in this matter indicates that on September13, 2017, the trial court imposed a ten-day sentence, and stated that this is “a gift because I could be giving you six months * * * ten days then you can go on about your business.” This sentence was clearly a sentence for the underlying offense and not simply a deferred judgment violation. 2018See People v. Lopez, 97 P.3d 223 (Colo.App.Div.A 2004); Doyle v. State, 2009 Ark.App. 94 , 302 S.W.3d 607 (Div.2). {¶10} The record in this matter indicates that on September13, 2017, the trial court imposed a ten-day sentence, and stated that this is “a gift because I could be giving you six months * * * ten days then you can go on about your business.” This sentence was clearly a sentence for the underlying offense and not simply a deferred judgment violation. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Amos
green
1 sentence2018Gallia No. 15CA5, 2016-Ohio-917, fn. 1 , citing Katz & Giannelli, Criminal Law, Section 123:7 (3d Ed.2009). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Ruff
green
2 sentences2018State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 , 2015-Ohio-995 , 34 N.E.3d 892, ¶ 10 . {¶9} We recognize that courts have held that there is no double jeopardy violation where a trial court imposes sentence for a “deferred judgment violation” such as a positive drug test, and later imposes a sentence on the underlying offense. 2018State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 , 2015-Ohio-995 , 34 N.E.3d 892, ¶ 10 . {¶9} We recognize that courts have held that there is no double jeopardy violation where a trial court imposes sentence for a “deferred judgment violation” such as a positive drug test, and later imposes a sentence on the underlying offense. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 627
green
1 sentence2006The SORTA case concerns an employee of the Southwest Regional Transit Authority that was terminated due to a positive drug test. {¶ 15} In the SORTA case, the Ohio Supreme Court held that "* * * vacating an arbitration award pursuant to public policy is a narrow exception to the `hands off' policy that courts employ in reviewing arbitration awards and `does not otherwise sanction a broad judicial power to set aside arbitration awards as against public policy.' [Citation omitted.] Accordingly, we must examine `law and legal precedents' in order to determine if there is any public policy that wo | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co.
green
2 sentences1992The Supreme Court of Ohio has addressed an employer’s right to discharge an employee as follows: “Unless otherwise agreed, either party to an oral employment-at-will employment agreement may terminate the employment relationship for any reason which is not contrary to law.” Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 100 , 19 OBR 261, 483 N.E.2d 150 , paragraph one of the syllabus. 1992The Supreme Court of Ohio has addressed an employer’s right to discharge an employee as follows: “Unless otherwise agreed, either party to an oral employment-at-will employment agreement may terminate the employment relationship for any reason which is not contrary to law.” Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 100 , 19 OBR 261, 483 N.E.2d 150 , paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.