affirmed principle (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

affirmed principle in Ohio

6 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2020 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.

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
Davis v. Davis green
ohioctapp · 1988
2 sentences

2008Court of Common Pleas (July 27, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 63444. {¶ 6} Similarly, in Davis v. Davis (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 196 , 201 , 563 N.E.2d 320 , this court affirmed the principle that "[the trial court] retained authority to permit or preclude the enforcement of its judgment until the appellant posted an approved supersedeas bond." In Gullia v. Gullia (July 8, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62476, this court ruled that the trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce its orders while the case was on appeal and after the appellant's motion for stay had been denied. {¶ 7} This court further note

2008Court of Common Pleas (July 27, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 63444. {¶ 6} Similarly, in Davis v. Davis (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 196 , 201 , 563 N.E.2d 320 , this court affirmed the principle that "[the trial court] retained authority to permit or preclude the enforcement of its judgment until the appellant posted an approved supersedeas bond." In Gullia v. Gullia (July 8, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62476, this court ruled that the trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce its orders while the case was on appeal and after the appellant's motion for stay had been denied. {¶ 7} This court further note

32008–2008
State v. Judd, Unpublished Decision (12-20-2007) green
ohioctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2020Cuyahoga No. 89278, 2007-Ohio-6811 .

12020–2020
Woods v. Civil Service Commission green
ohioctapp · 1983
1 sentence

2007Comm. (1983), 7 Ohio App.3d 304 , 305-306 . {¶ 34} To be sure, a trial court may not allow an amendment to a notice of appeal that was not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court in the first instance.

12007–2007
State v. Foster green
ohio · 2006
1 sentence

2007In Kincer III , this court affirmed the violation finding, but vacated appellant's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing in accordance with State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 . {¶ 4} On remand, appellant was resentenced to the same 12-month term of incarceration.

12007–2007

Where else courts name it

CA 13 (1901–2026) IL 9 (1870–2007) PA 9 (1956–2019) IN 9 (1892–2009) LA 8 (1910–2018) NM 7 (2003–2024) FL 7 (1933–2017) WA 7 (1931–2025) OH 6 (2007–2020) NY 5 (1852–2007) TX 5 (2009–2020) NC 5 (1915–2025) MT 5 (1928–2000) MO 5 (1912–2025) MI 4 (1970–1995) SD 4 (1929–2009) ME 4 (1979–2019) RI 4 (1987–2019) WI 4 (1980–2002) MS 3 (2002–2018) ID 3 (1912–2007) MA 3 (1993–1999) CT 3 (1995–2000) SC 3 (1995–2008) KS 3 (1896–1991) VT 3 (1970–2004) NJ 3 (1936–2024) IA 2 (2001–2019) UT 2 (1942–1987) ND 2 (1983–2020) OK 2 (1936–2003) OR 2 (1987–2021) MD 2 (1988–2011) MN 2 (1998–2019) GA 2 (1926–2005) NE 2 (1988–2001)

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