305 Ohio opinions name it 21 courts 1875–2026 47 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marks v. C.P. Chemical Co.green2 sentences2026Co., Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 200, 201 (1987) (“Because Civ.R. 23 is virtually identical to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, we have recognized that ‘federal authority is an appropriate aid to interpretation of the Ohio rule.’”). {¶ 39} As this court has stated, “[t]he Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, which were promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 5(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, must control over subsequently enacted inconsistent statutes purporting to govern procedural matters.” Rockey v. 84 Lumber Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 221 (1993), paragraph two of the syllabus. 2026Co., Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 200, 201 (1987) (“Because Civ.R. 23 is virtually identical to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, we have recognized that ‘federal authority is an appropriate aid to interpretation of the Ohio rule.’”). {¶ 39} As this court has stated, “[t]he Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, which were promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 5(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, must control over subsequently enacted inconsistent statutes purporting to govern procedural matters.” Rockey v. 84 Lumber Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 221 (1993), paragraph two of the syllabus. | 3 | 5 |
McKimm v. Ohio Elections Commissiongreen2 sentences2022Additionally, “[a]ll four factors of Ohio’s test for distinguishing a statement of fact from an opinion depend on the reasonable reader’s perception of the statement–not on the perception of the publisher.” McKimm v. Ohio Elections Comm., 89 Ohio St.3d 139, 144 (2000), citing Vail at 282-283. 2017"All four factors of Ohio's test for distinguishing a statement of fact from an opinion depend on the reasonable reader's perception of the statement-not on the perception of the publisher." Id. , citing Vail at 282-83, 649 N.E.2d 182 . | 3 | 4 |
In re Mitchellgreen2 sentences2006“We expect applicants for admission to the Ohio bar and bar members to scrupulously honor all financial commitments.” In re Application of Manayan, 102 Ohio St.3d 109 , 2004-Ohio-1804 , 807 N.E.2d 313, ¶ 14 ; In re Application of Mitchell (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 153 , 679 N.E.2d 1127 (disapproving the application of an applicant who, along with other problems, had had several credit cards canceled for nonpayment). {¶ 22} The applicant’s tendency toward financial irresponsibility makes him a poor risk to entrust with the duties owed clients,’the courts, adversaries, and others in the practice of 2006“We expect applicants for admission to the Ohio bar and bar members to scrupulously honor all financial commitments.” In re Application of Manayan, 102 Ohio St.3d 109 , 2004-Ohio-1804 , 807 N.E.2d 313, ¶ 14 ; In re Application of Mitchell (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 153 , 679 N.E.2d 1127 (disapproving the application of an applicant who, along with other problems, had had several credit cards canceled for nonpayment). {¶ 22} The applicant’s tendency toward financial irresponsibility makes him a poor risk to entrust with the duties owed clients,’the courts, adversaries, and others in the practice of | 3 | 4 |
Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc. (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2026Furthermore, “[b]ecause the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure are modeled after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal law interpreting the federal rule is appropriate and persuasive authority in interpreting a similar Ohio rule.” Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., 145 Ohio St.3d 329, 333 (2015), citing Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. 2026Furthermore, “[b]ecause the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure are modeled after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal law interpreting the federal rule is appropriate and persuasive authority in interpreting a similar Ohio rule.” Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., 145 Ohio St.3d 329, 333 (2015), citing Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. | 2 | 5 |
Myers v. City of Toledogreen2 sentences2015See Myers v. Toledo, 110 Ohio St.3d 218 , 2006-Ohio-4353 , ¶ 18 (when the language of a federal rule of civil procedure tracks the language of an Ohio rule of civil procedure, case law interpreting the federal rule is persuasive authority). 2015See Myers v. Toledo, 110 Ohio St.3d 218 , 2006-Ohio-4353 , ¶ 18 (when the language of a federal rule of civil procedure tracks the language of an Ohio rule of civil procedure, case law interpreting the federal rule is persuasive authority). | 2 | 5 |
Hope Academy v. White Hat Mgt., L.L.C.green2 sentences2026See, e.g., Hope Academy, Broadway Campus v. White Hat Mgt., LLC, 2022-Ohio-178, ¶ 32, fn. 6 (10th Dist.); State v. Burnett, 93 Ohio St.3d 419, 422-24 (2001). {¶ 25} We ultimately find that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, appellees have not provided this court with a compelling reason to depart from the notice- pleading standard applicable to claims brought in Ohio courts. 2026See, e.g., Hope Academy, Broadway Campus v. White Hat Mgt., LLC, 2022-Ohio-178, ¶ 32, fn. 6 (10th Dist.); State v. Burnett, 93 Ohio St.3d 419, 422-24 (2001). {¶ 25} We ultimately find that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, appellees have not provided this court with a compelling reason to depart from the notice- pleading standard applicable to claims brought in Ohio courts. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Burnettgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., Hope Academy, Broadway Campus v. White Hat Mgt., LLC, 2022-Ohio-178, ¶ 32, fn. 6 (10th Dist.); State v. Burnett, 93 Ohio St.3d 419, 422-24 (2001). {¶ 25} We ultimately find that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, appellees have not provided this court with a compelling reason to depart from the notice- pleading standard applicable to claims brought in Ohio courts. 2026See, e.g., Hope Academy, Broadway Campus v. White Hat Mgt., LLC, 2022-Ohio-178, ¶ 32, fn. 6 (10th Dist.); State v. Burnett, 93 Ohio St.3d 419, 422-24 (2001). {¶ 25} We ultimately find that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, appellees have not provided this court with a compelling reason to depart from the notice- pleading standard applicable to claims brought in Ohio courts. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Webbgreen2 sentences2015For non-constitutional errors in the admission of evidence, the test is whether “there is substantial other evidence to support the guilty verdict.” State v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 325, 335 (1994). {¶34} The Ohio test * * * for determining whether the admission of inflammatory and otherwise erroneous evidence is harmless non- constitutional error requires the reviewing court to look at the whole record, leaving out the disputed evidence, and then to decide whether there is other substantial evidence to support the guilty verdict. 2015For non-constitutional errors in the admission of evidence, the test is whether “there is substantial other evidence to support the guilty verdict.” State v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 325, 335 (1994). {¶34} The Ohio test * * * for determining whether the admission of inflammatory and otherwise erroneous evidence is harmless non- constitutional error requires the reviewing court to look at the whole record, leaving out the disputed evidence, and then to decide whether there is other substantial evidence to support the guilty verdict. | 2 | 2 |
| Kleinfeld v. Linkgreen | 2 | 2 |
In re Manayangreen2 sentences2021See also In re Application of Mefford, 104 Ohio St.3d 324 , 2004-Ohio-6591 , 819 N.E.2d 684 , ¶ 11 (“seeming lack of concern on the applicant’s part in the face of repeated requests [to furnish financial information] from the panel fully justifies the panel’s and the board’s recommendation that the applicant not be permitted to take the bar examination at this time”). {¶ 22} “And financial responsibility is critically important for lawyers.” Mefford at ¶ 12. “ ‘We expect applicants for admission to the Ohio bar and bar members to scrupulously honor all financial commitments.’ ” Id., quoting In 2021See also In re Application of Mefford, 104 Ohio St.3d 324 , 2004-Ohio-6591 , 819 N.E.2d 684 , ¶ 11 (“seeming lack of concern on the applicant’s part in the face of repeated requests [to furnish financial information] from the panel fully justifies the panel’s and the board’s recommendation that the applicant not be permitted to take the bar examination at this time”). {¶ 22} “And financial responsibility is critically important for lawyers.” Mefford at ¶ 12. “ ‘We expect applicants for admission to the Ohio bar and bar members to scrupulously honor all financial commitments.’ ” Id., quoting In | 1 | 8 |
Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. Co. of Ohiogreen2 sentences2014Co. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 231 , 2013-Ohio-3019 , 994 N.E.2d 408, ¶18 ("federal law interpreting a federal rule, while not controlling, is persuasive in interpreting a similar Ohio rule."). 2014Co. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 231 , 2013-Ohio-3019 , 994 N.E.2d 408, ¶18 ("federal law interpreting a federal rule, while not controlling, is persuasive in interpreting a similar Ohio rule."). | 1 | 7 |
In re Cvammengreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., In re Application of Cvammen, 102 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2004-Ohio-1584 , 806 N.E.2d 498 (permanently denying an application to register as a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar because ethical infractions so permeated the admissions process that the applicant’s honesty and integrity were shown to be intrinsically suspect); In re Application of Keita, 74 Ohio St.3d 46 , 656 N.E.2d 620 (1995) (permanently denying registration and bar-exam applications of an applicant who was unwilling to accept responsibility for questionable past behaviors and lapses in judgment). {¶ 25} Based upon the 2016See In re Application of Bagne, 102 Ohio St.3d 182 , 2004-Ohio-2070 , 808 N.E.2d 372 (application denied and applicant permitted to reapply in three years based on false statements to law-enforcement personnel and false testimony during admissions hearings in both Michigan and Ohio); In re Application of Cvammen, 102 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2004-Ohio-1584 , 806 N.E.2d 498 , ¶ 22 (permanently denying application to register as candidate for admission to the Ohio bar because ethical infractions so permeated the admissions process that the applicant’s honesty and integrity were shown to be intrinsically | 1 | 4 |
Vail v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.green2 sentences2017"All four factors of Ohio's test for distinguishing a statement of fact from an opinion depend on the reasonable reader's perception of the statement-not on the perception of the publisher." Id. , citing Vail at 282-83, 649 N.E.2d 182 . 2009Additionally, “[a]ll four factors of Ohio’s test for distinguishing a statement of fact from an opinion depend on the reasonable reader’s perception of the statement — not on the perception of the publisher.” McKimm v. Ohio Elections Comm. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 139, 144 , 729 N.E.2d 364 , citing Vail, 72 Ohio St.3d at 282-283 , 649 N.E.2d 182 . | 1 | 4 |
Humphrey v. Lanegreen2 sentences2022Humphrey, 89 Ohio St.3d at 67 (noting the federal standard was previously stricter and correlated to Ohio’s standard). 2000Even applying the Ohio test for the free exercise of religion as set out in Humphrey v. Lane (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 62 , 728 N.E.2d 1039 , I would find that Section 80 furthered a compelling state interest of preserving the nature of the neighborhood. | 1 | 3 |
| Disciplinary Counsel v. Polizzi (Slip Opinion)green | 1 | 1 |
| Sharp v. Union Carbide Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. T.W.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| In re Kohlergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pettifordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hendersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.green | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Karmasu v. Tategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Roe v. Bolandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tera, L.L.C. v. Rice Drilling D., L.L.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Holzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sadeghigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Whitaker, Unpublished Decision (3-2-2007)green | 1 | 1 |
| Ziegler v. Findlay Industries, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Reynolds v. Stricklandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re S.M.B.green | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Scott v. Industrial Commissiongreen | 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. Hamblin
green
2 sentences2015State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 155-156 , 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988). 2015State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 155-156 , 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988). | 10 | 2007–2015 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2026Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-595 ; Miller, at 611-612. {¶38} The amended Ohio rule mirrors the 2023 amendments to Fed.R. 2026Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-595 ; Miller, at 611-612. {¶38} The amended Ohio rule mirrors the 2023 amendments to Fed.R. | 5 | 1998–2026 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2001In State v. Davis (1975), 44 Ohio App.2d 335 , our court stated at 347-348: The Ohio test then for determining whether the admission of inflammtory and otherwise erroneous evidence is harmless non-constitutional error requires the reviewing court to look at the whole record, leaving out the disputed evidence, and then to decide whether there is other substantial evidence to support the guilty verdict. 2001In State v. Davis (1975), 44 Ohio App.2d 335 , our court stated at 347-348: The Ohio test then for determining whether the admission of inflammtory and otherwise erroneous evidence is harmless non-constitutional error requires the reviewing court to look at the whole record, leaving out the disputed evidence, and then to decide whether there is other substantial evidence to support the guilty verdict. | 5 | 1984–2017 |
State v. Cowans
green
2 sentences2017No. L-83-074, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 3856 , *13, 1991 WL 156534 (Aug. 16, 1991). {¶23} “The test is whether ‘there is substantial evidence to support the guilty verdict even after the tainted evidence is cast aside.’ Id. at ¶20, quoting State v. Cowans, 10 Ohio St.2d 96, 104 , 227 N.E.2d 201 (1967). {¶24} “‘The Ohio test * * * for determining whether admission of * * * erroneous 7 evidence is harmless non-constitutional error requires the reviewing court to look at the whole record, leaving out the disputed evidence, and then to decide whether there is other substantial evidence to support the g 2017No. L-83-074, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 3856 , *13, 1991 WL 156534 (Aug. 16, 1991). {¶23} “The test is whether ‘there is substantial evidence to support the guilty verdict even after the tainted evidence is cast aside.’ Id. at ¶20, quoting State v. Cowans, 10 Ohio St.2d 96, 104 , 227 N.E.2d 201 (1967). {¶24} “‘The Ohio test * * * for determining whether admission of * * * erroneous 7 evidence is harmless non-constitutional error requires the reviewing court to look at the whole record, leaving out the disputed evidence, and then to decide whether there is other substantial evidence to support the g | 3 | 1975–2017 |
Dunn v. United States
green
2 sentences2005Woodson, supra. {¶ 20} The Ohio rule is consistent with the reasoning set forth in Dunn v. United States (1932), 284 U.S. 390 , the leading federal case on this subject. 2005Woodson, supra. {¶ 20} The Ohio rule is consistent with the reasoning set forth in Dunn v. United States (1932), 284 U.S. 390 , the leading federal case on this subject. | 3 | 1985–2005 |
Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson
neutral
2 sentences2026Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson, 78 Ohio St.3d 1501 (1997). 2006Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 1501 , 679 N.E.2d 2 . | 2 | 2006–2026 |
United States Marshals Service v. Means
green
2 sentences2025Evid.R. 614(A) “ ‘simply codifies a judge's well-established common law authority to call witnesses.’ ” State v. Pettiford, 2019-Ohio-892, ¶ 86 (2d Dist.), quoting United States Marshals Serv. v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053 , 1058 (8th Cir. 1984) (discussing Fed.R.Evid. 614(a), which is identical to Ohio’s rule). 2019“Rule 614(a) simply codifies a judge's well-established common law authority to call witnesses.” U.S. Marshals Serv. v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053 , 1058 (8th Cir.1984) (discussing Fed.R.Evid.614(a), which is identical to Ohio’s rule). | 2 | 2019–2025 |
Bartner v. Debiasse
green
2 sentences2022As stated by the Supreme Court 3 Case No. 2021-G-0015 in Maryhew, “[w]e are supported in this conclusion by a number of federal cases which have had occasion to interpret Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 which is comparable to the Ohio rule.” (Parallel citations omitted.) Id., citing Bartner v. Debiasse 20 F.R.D. 355 (E.D.N.Y.1957) (where the defendant obtained two extensions “to answer or otherwise move,” and the court held that the defendant did not waive his right to assert lack of jurisdiction over his person). {¶11} Accordingly, the trial court did not err in concluding that Daniel did not waive the defen 2022As stated by the Supreme Court 3 Case No. 2021-G-0015 in Maryhew, “[w]e are supported in this conclusion by a number of federal cases which have had occasion to interpret Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 which is comparable to the Ohio rule.” (Parallel citations omitted.) Id., citing Bartner v. Debiasse 20 F.R.D. 355 (E.D.N.Y.1957) (where the defendant obtained two extensions “to answer or otherwise move,” and the court held that the defendant did not waive his right to assert lack of jurisdiction over his person). {¶11} Accordingly, the trial court did not err in concluding that Daniel did not waive the defen | 2 | 1984–2022 |
Cook v. City of Cincinnati
green
2 sentences2022Coterel, 2016-Ohio-7411 , 72 N.E.3d 1159, at ¶ 14 , citing Cook v. Cincinnati, 103 Ohio App.3d 80, 90 , 658 N.E.2d 814 (1st Dist.1995). 2022Coterel, 2016-Ohio-7411 , 72 N.E.3d 1159, at ¶ 14 , citing Cook v. Cincinnati, 103 Ohio App.3d 80, 90 , 658 N.E.2d 814 (1st Dist.1995). | 2 | 2016–2022 |
State v. Lacey
neutral
2 sentences2021Cuyahoga No. 102812, 2016-Ohio-1375, ¶ 15 . {¶32} Ohio limits the practice of law to those individuals who have been admitted to the Ohio bar. 2021Cuyahoga No. 102812, 2016-Ohio-1375, ¶ 15 . {¶32} Ohio limits the practice of law to those individuals who have been admitted to the Ohio bar. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Fugate
green
2 sentences2018It is not at all unusual for Ohio defendants to receive "double credit." The state's argument that it would be absurd to conclude that the General Assembly intended "double credit" in the jail-time-credit context is a nonstarter. {¶ 37} This court's decision in State v. Fugate , 117 Ohio St.3d 261 , 2008-Ohio-856 , 883 N.E.2d 440 , is also helpful. 2018It is not at all unusual for Ohio defendants to receive "double credit." The state's argument that it would be absurd to conclude that the General Assembly intended "double credit" in the jail-time-credit context is a nonstarter. {¶ 37} This court's decision in State v. Fugate , 117 Ohio St.3d 261 , 2008-Ohio-856 , 883 N.E.2d 440 , is also helpful. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
In re Aboyade
green
2 sentences2015See Supreme Court of Ohio, Definitions of Essential Eligibility Requirements for the Practice of Law, Requirement Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 10, http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/AttySvcs/admissions/pdf/ESSENTIAL_ELIG IBILITY_REQUREMENTS.pdf. 8 January Term, 2015 {¶ 20} We have recognized that “[a]n applicant whose honesty and integrity are intrinsically suspect cannot be admitted to the Ohio bar.” In re Application of Aboyade, 103 Ohio St.3d 318 , 2004-Ohio-4773 , 815 N.E.2d 383 , ¶ 16, citing In re Application of Cvammen, 102 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2004-Ohio-1584 , 806 N.E.2d 498 , ¶ 22. 2015See Supreme Court of Ohio, Definitions of Essential Eligibility Requirements for the Practice of Law, Requirement Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 10, http://www.supremecourt.ohio. gov/AttySvcs/admissions/pdf/ESSENTIAL_ELIGIBILITY_REQUIREMENTS. pdf. {¶ 20} We have recognized that “[a]n applicant whose honesty and integrity are intrinsically suspect cannot be admitted to the Ohio bar.” In re Application of Aboyade, 103 Ohio St.3d 318 , 2004-Ohio-4773 , 815 N.E.2d 383 , ¶ 16, citing In re Application of Cvammen, 102 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2004-Ohio-1584 , 806 N.E.2d 498 , ¶ 22. | 2 | 2015–2017 |
Bureau of Support in the Department of Mental Hygiene & Correction v. Kreitzer
green
2 sentences2016The first branch of the syllabus in Martin reads as follows: “A trust conferring upon the trustees power to distribute income and principal in their ‘absolute discretion,’ but which provides standards by -29- which that discretion is to be exercised with reference to needs of the trust beneficiary for education, care, comfort or support, is neither a purely discretionary trust nor a strict support trust, and the trustees of such trust may be required to exercise their discretion to distribute income and principal for those needs.” (Citing Bureau of Support v. Kreitzer [1968], 16 Ohio St.2d 147 2016The first branch of the syllabus in Martin reads as follows: “A trust conferring upon the trustees power to distribute income and principal in their ‘absolute discretion,’ but which provides standards by -29- which that discretion is to be exercised with reference to needs of the trust beneficiary for education, care, comfort or support, is neither a purely discretionary trust nor a strict support trust, and the trustees of such trust may be required to exercise their discretion to distribute income and principal for those needs.” (Citing Bureau of Support v. Kreitzer [1968], 16 Ohio St.2d 147 | 2 | 1981–2016 |
Transamerica Insurance v. Nolan
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 321 . {¶10} The Ohio Supreme Court acknowledged the similarity between App.R. 3(D) and Fed.R.App.P. 3, but declined to interpret the Ohio rule as strictly as the Torres court had interpreted the federal rule. 2015Id. at 321 . {¶10} The Ohio Supreme Court acknowledged the similarity between App.R. 3(D) and Fed.R.App.P. 3, but declined to interpret the Ohio rule as strictly as the Torres court had interpreted the federal rule. | 2 | 2006–2015 |
Rodrigo Garcia v. United States
green
2 sentences2012Thus, “[e]vidence intrinsic to the crime for which the defendant is on trial * * * is not governed by Rule 404(b).” Id. (discussing the federal rule, which is nearly identical to the Ohio rule). {¶24} In State v. Watson, 28 Ohio St.2d 15 , 275 N.E.2d 153 (1971), the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the admissibility of other acts evidence involving a defendant seen with a gun. 2012Thus, “[e]vidence intrinsic to the crime for which the defendant is on trial * * * is not governed by Rule 404(b).” Id. (discussing the federal rule, which is nearly identical to the Ohio rule). {¶24} In State v. Watson, 28 Ohio St.2d 15 , 275 N.E.2d 153 (1971), the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the admissibility of other acts evidence involving a defendant seen with a gun. | 2 | 2011–2012 |
State v. Watson
green
2 sentences2012Thus, “[e]vidence intrinsic to the crime for which the defendant is on trial * * * is not governed by Rule 404(b).” Id. (discussing the federal rule, which is nearly identical to the Ohio rule). {¶24} In State v. Watson, 28 Ohio St.2d 15 , 275 N.E.2d 153 (1971), the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the admissibility of other acts evidence involving a defendant seen with a gun. 2012Thus, “[e]vidence intrinsic to the crime for which the defendant is on trial * * * is not governed by Rule 404(b).” Id. (discussing the federal rule, which is nearly identical to the Ohio rule). {¶24} In State v. Watson, 28 Ohio St.2d 15 , 275 N.E.2d 153 (1971), the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the admissibility of other acts evidence involving a defendant seen with a gun. | 2 | 2011–2012 |
Bishop v. East Ohio Gas Co.
green
2 sentences2008The rule is especially applicable where *Page 4 the property may have a peculiar worth to plaintiff.'" Bishop v. East Ohio Gas Co. (1944), 143 Ohio St. 541 , 545-546 , 56 N.E.2d 164 ; see, also, Tokles Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemn. 2008The rule is especially applicable where *Page 4 the property may have a peculiar worth to plaintiff.'" Bishop v. East Ohio Gas Co. (1944), 143 Ohio St. 541 , 545-546 , 56 N.E.2d 164 ; see, also, Tokles Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemn. | 2 | 2007–2008 |
| General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon green | 2 | 2003–2005 |
| Vanguards of Cleveland v. City of Cleveland, and Local Number 93, I.A.F.F., Afl-Cio, Intervenor-Appellant green | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| Richard Vogel v. The City of Cincinnati, the Sentinel Police Association, Intervenor-Appellee green | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| Hook v. State of Arizona, Department of Corrections green | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Hector green | 2 | 1974–2004 |
| State Employment Relations Board v. Adena Local School District Board of Education green | 2 | 1998–2002 |
| Scott v. News-Herald green | 2 | 2000–2000 |
| Terry v. Pearlman green | 2 | 1999–1999 |
| Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Baker green | 2 | 1996–1999 |
| Lucas v. Lucas neutral | 2 | 1909–1950 |
| Rockey v. 84 Lumber Co. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Paul Cheatham I.R.A. v. Huntington Natl. Bank (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Lundeen v. Turner green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Geis green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Hayes v. Oakridge Home green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Ake v. Oklahoma green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Lawson (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisenberg green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Schafer v. Deszcz green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. McLoyd green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Calhoun green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Northwest Real Estate Co. v. Serio green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In re Application of Richmond neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.