reconsideration test (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

reconsideration test in Ohio

7 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2024 4 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
City of Columbus v. Hodge green
ohioctapp · 1987
2 sentences

2024Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68 (10th Dist. 1987), paragraph one of the syllabus.

2002Appellees' December 17, 2001 Motion for Reconsideration The standard to apply in determining whether an application for reconsideration has merit was established by the syllabus to Columbus v. Hodge (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 68 : "1.

52002–2024
State ex rel. Royal v. Industrial Commission green
ohio · 2002
2 sentences

2003Comm. (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 97 , the court again reviewed an interlocutory order in which the commission had scheduled a reconsideration hearing based on the mere "possibility of an error." The procedural posture was different, however, in that the employer had made a second request for reconsideration after the first request for reconsideration was denied. {¶ 38} In the present action, the magistrate finds at least one glaring error of law in the SHO's order.

2003Comm., 95 Ohio St.3d 97 , 2002-Ohio-1935 , the court again reviewed an interlocutory order of the commission that scheduled a reconsideration hearing based on the mere "possibility of an error" in the commission's prior order.

22003–2003
State ex rel. Royal v. Indus. Comm. neutral
ohio · 2002
1 sentence

2003Comm., 95 Ohio St.3d 97 , 2002-Ohio-1935 , the court again reviewed an interlocutory order of the commission that scheduled a reconsideration hearing based on the mere "possibility of an error" in the commission's prior order.

12003–2003
Matthews v. Matthews green
ohioctapp · 1981
2 sentences

2002The test generally applied upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration in the court of appeals is whether the motion calls to the attention of the court an obvious error in its decision, or raises an issue for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been. ( Matthews v. Matthews [1981], 5 Ohio App.3d 140 , 5 OBR 320, 450 N.E.2d 278 , followed.)" We now apply the test to this case.

2002The test generally applied upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration in the court of appeals is whether the motion calls to the attention of the court an obvious error in its decision, or raises an issue for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been. ( Matthews v. Matthews [1981], 5 Ohio App.3d 140 , 5 OBR 320, 450 N.E.2d 278 , followed.)" We now apply the test to this case.

12002–2002

Where else courts name it

PA 16 (1957–2024) CA 11 (1955–2024) WI 9 (1955–2026) NJ 8 (1987–2026) OH 7 (2002–2024) IL 6 (1972–2024) NY 5 (1982–2025) SC 4 (2008–2020) CT 3 (2005–2021) HI 3 (2004–2024) ME 3 (2001–2007) OR 3 (1988–2001) MD 3 (1974–2013) NC 2 (1971–2006) KS 2 (1990–2018) WA 2 (1978–1978) NH 2 (1986–1989) MA 2 (1999–2008) DC 2 (1960–1994) TX 2 (1992–1999) VA 2 (2009–2009) MI 2 (2015–2016) MN 2 (1970–1979) WY 2 (1978–2009) CO 2 (1952–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check