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 1973–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ulmer v. Fulton, Supt.green2 sentences2010Kane v. Bloodgood (N.Y.1823), 7 Johns Ch. 90; Paschall v. Hinderer (1876), 28 Ohio St. 568 ; Douglas v. Corry, supra [(1889)], 40 [46] Ohio St. 349, 21 N.E. 440 . {¶ 81} “The reason why such a rule was developed by equity courts and its incorporation into the Code of Civil Procedure wherein statutes of limitation were made applicable to all actions, whether formerly legal or equitable (Chinn v. Trustees (1877), 32 Ohio St. 236 ), is perceivable when consideration is given to the nature of the technical trust cognizable solely in equity. {¶ 82} “ ‘A trust is the right, enforceable in equity, to 2010Kane v. Bloodgood (N.Y.1823), 7 Johns Ch. 90; Paschall v. Hinderer (1876), 28 Ohio St. 568 ; Douglas v. Corry, supra [(1889)], 40 [46] Ohio St. 349, 21 N.E. 440 . {¶ 81} “The reason why such a rule was developed by equity courts and its incorporation into the Code of Civil Procedure wherein statutes of limitation were made applicable to all actions, whether formerly legal or equitable (Chinn v. Trustees (1877), 32 Ohio St. 236 ), is perceivable when consideration is given to the nature of the technical trust cognizable solely in equity. {¶ 82} “ ‘A trust is the right, enforceable in equity, to | 1 | 3 |
Bertolini v. Whitehall City School District Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2014Bd. of Edn., 139 Ohio App.3d 595, 606-07 (2000), quoting Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 523 No. 13AP-690 16 U.S. 75 (1998). 2002Bd. of Edn. (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 595 , 606-607 , quoting Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. (1998), 523 U.S. 75 , 81 , 118 S.Ct. 998 , 1003 . "[F]ederal case law interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 2000e et seq., Title 42, U.S. Code, is generally applicable to cases involving alleged violations of R.C. | 1 | 2 |
Hubbell v. City of Xeniagreen2 sentences2012See also Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 , 2007–Ohio–4839, 873 N.E.2d 878, ¶ 9 (denial of summary judgment is generally not appealable). {¶102} Although the employee appealed from the order that denied immunity and she couches her argument as being a reason why immunity should be maintained, she does not actually make immunity arguments. 2012See also Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 , 2007–Ohio–4839, 873 N.E.2d 878, ¶ 9 (denial of summary judgment is generally not appealable). {¶102} Although the employee appealed from the order that denied immunity and she couches her argument as being a reason why immunity should be maintained, she does not actually make immunity arguments. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000The reason why this standard should be followed is “to ensure that courts and juries do not mistake ordinary socializing in the workplace * * * for discriminatory ‘conditions of employment.’ ” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. (1998), 523 U.S. 75, 81 , 118 S.Ct. 998, 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 201, 208 . 2000The reason why this standard should be followed is “to ensure that courts and juries do not mistake ordinary socializing in the workplace * * * for discriminatory ‘conditions of employment.’ ” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. (1998), 523 U.S. 75, 81 , 118 S.Ct. 998, 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 201, 208 . | 2 | 2000–2002 |
Chapa v. Genpak, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2014No. 12AP-466, 2014-Ohio-897 ; Harris. {¶ 49} "The reason why this standard should be followed is 'to ensure that courts and juries do not mistake ordinary socializing in the workplace * * * for discriminatory "conditions of employment." ' " Bertolini v. Whitehall City School Dist. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.