added standard (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

added standard in Ohio

6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2026 3 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Jeffries (Slip Opinion)green
ohio · 2020 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024See State v. Jeffries, 2020-Ohio-1539, ¶ 18, 27.

2024See State v. Jeffries, 2020-Ohio-1539, ¶ 18, 27 .

22
Tanksley v. Howellgreen
ohioctapp · 2020 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026Despite the added claim for constructive discharge, the 1 See Tanksley v. Howell, 2020-Ohio-4278, ¶ 22 (10th Dist.) (“In order to establish a prima facie case [of discrimination], a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she: (1) is a member of a protected class, (2) suffered an adverse employment action, (3) was qualified for the position in question, and (4) was replaced by someone outside of the protected class or that the employer treated a similarly situated, non-protected person more favorably”), citing Veal v. Upreach LLC, 2011-Ohio-5406 , ¶ 21 (10th Dist.), citing McDonnell Douglas Corp

11
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Greengreen
scotus · 1973 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026Despite the added claim for constructive discharge, the 1 See Tanksley v. Howell, 2020-Ohio-4278, ¶ 22 (10th Dist.) (“In order to establish a prima facie case [of discrimination], a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she: (1) is a member of a protected class, (2) suffered an adverse employment action, (3) was qualified for the position in question, and (4) was replaced by someone outside of the protected class or that the employer treated a similarly situated, non-protected person more favorably”), citing Veal v. Upreach LLC, 2011-Ohio-5406 , ¶ 21 (10th Dist.), citing McDonnell Douglas Corp

11

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
State v. Mannah green
ohioctapp · 2018
1 sentence

2019Id. {¶27} Here, we find that Blake is controlling of Appellant’s appeal.2 Similar to Blake, after a community control violation, the trial court found that Appellant was still amenable to continued community control sanctions, but the court added the requirement that Appellant “shall enroll in and successfully complete STAR and all recommended aftercare as directed by the Adult Parole Authority.” But Appellant withdrew and consequently failed to successfully complete the STAR program.

12019–2019
Baiko v. Mays green
ohioctapp · 2000
1 sentence

2008Therefore, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. 2 Baiko v. Mays (2000), 140 Ohio App.3d 1 , citing Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35 ; Northeast Ohio Apt.

12008–2008
Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc. green
ohio · 1987
1 sentence

2008Therefore, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. 2 Baiko v. Mays (2000), 140 Ohio App.3d 1 , citing Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35 ; Northeast Ohio Apt.

12008–2008
State v. Jobes, Unpublished Decision (3-12-2004) green
ohioctapp · 2004
1 sentence

2005"Application of the exclusionary rule in such fashion," as one court put it, "would in effect give the victims of illegal searches a license to assault and murder the officers involved — a result manifestly unacceptable." Id. {¶ 21} The foregoing analysis was clearly recognized by the trial court and we approve and adopt its decision as our own, together with the added analysis set forth above. {¶ 22} The assignment of error is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

12005–2005

Where else courts name it

PA 36 (1908–2026) CA 29 (1861–2025) NJ 27 (1942–2023) NY 22 (1876–2018) TX 21 (1916–2021) ND 15 (1994–2018) LA 12 (1914–2015) CT 11 (1963–2004) MI 10 (1897–2024) WA 10 (1932–2017) DC 9 (1984–2009) FL 8 (1930–2014) WI 8 (1969–2018) IA 7 (1917–2026) MO 7 (1916–2017) IL 7 (1914–2024) OH 6 (2005–2026) IN 6 (1875–1987) MD 6 (1938–2013) AK 6 (1983–2021) AL 5 (1934–2017) DE 4 (1986–2022) AR 4 (1944–2017) OK 4 (1975–2017) CO 4 (1981–2017) OR 3 (1977–2025) NC 3 (1904–1990) VA 3 (1941–2000) GA 3 (1981–2004) KS 3 (1923–1979) MA 3 (2000–2019) WV 3 (1893–1989) KY 3 (1928–2015) UT 2 (2007–2024) VT 2 (1996–2006) TN 2 (1924–1982) RI 2 (2000–2010) ME 2 (2006–2014) SD 2 (1934–2000) MN 2 (1983–1990) AZ 2 (1996–1999)

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