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 1997–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Emery v. Emerygreen2 sentences1997See id. at 562 , 656 N.E.2d at 7 . 1997See id. at 562 , 656 N.E.2d at 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 |
|---|---|---|
Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.
red
2 sentences1999Van Fossen, supra. The Cook court, citing State ex rel. 1999Van Fossen, supra. The Cook court, citing State ex rel. | 3 | 1997–1999 |
State v. Cook
yellow
2 sentences2001Thereafter, following the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404 , that rejected retroactivity challenges to the statutory scheme, the state filed a request for a sexual predator adjudication in this matter. 1999We find no merit in either of these assignments of error based upon the Supreme Court of Ohio's recent decision in State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404 . | 2 | 1999–2001 |
Strongsville Board of Education v. Zaino
green
2 sentences2014We disagreed, stating that “the [board of education] sought not so much an extension of the filing date as it sought a retroactive waiver of the filing date.” Id. at 490 . {¶ 24} The reasoning of Strongsville applies a fortiori here. 2014We disagreed, stating that “the [board of education] sought not so much an extension of the filing date as it sought a retroactive waiver of the filing date.” Id. at 490 . {¶ 24} The reasoning of Strongsville applies a fortiori here. | 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.