6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tharp v. Hillcrest Baptist Church of Columbusgreen1 sentence2026See Tharp, 2022-Ohio-4695, at ¶ 46 (10th Dist.) (identifying the existence of an interest to be upheld a required element of qualified privilege). {¶40} Outside of the employer-employee relationship, a common business privilege exists where two entities share a “mutual business interest,” even if they are otherwise unrelated or the person making the statement and its recipient do not have the same employer. | 1 | 1 |
Jurczak v. Jr Schugel Trucking Co., Unpublished Decision (12-23-2003)green1 sentence2026Jurczak v. J&R Schugel Trucking Co., 2003-Ohio-7039, ¶ 41 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Erwin v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Jackson, supra at 284 , citing Robbins, supra. With respect to the business exception, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated, "[w]here a person in the lawful pursuit of his business, and without blame, is violently assaulted by one who manifestly and maliciously intends and endeavors to kill him, the person so assaulted" has no duty to retreat, even though it may be within his power to do so, and "may kill his assailant if necessary to save his own life or prevent enormous bodily harm." Erwin v. State (1876), 29 Ohio St. 186 , paragraph five of the syllabus. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robbinsgreen2 sentences2004As such, in addition to the general jury instruction regarding self-defense, appellant requested that the jury also be instructed as to the following: {¶ 9} "[I]f the Defendant was assaulted in his business, the Defendant had no duty to retreat or escape and could use such force, such means as are necessary to repel the assailant from the business even to the use of deadly force, provided that he had reasonable grounds to believe and an honest belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to repel the assailant." {¶ 10} The trial court, however, refused to instruct the jury that appellant 2004See Jackson, supra at 284 , citing Robbins, supra. With respect to the business exception, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated, "[w]here a person in the lawful pursuit of his business, and without blame, is violently assaulted by one who manifestly and maliciously intends and endeavors to kill him, the person so assaulted" has no duty to retreat, even though it may be within his power to do so, and "may kill his assailant if necessary to save his own life or prevent enormous bodily harm." Erwin v. State (1876), 29 Ohio St. 186 , paragraph five of the syllabus. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2004See, also, State v. Jackson (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 281 , 284 . {¶ 13} Generally, a person has a duty to retreat from danger unless he is in his home or business. 2004See Jackson, supra at 284 , citing Robbins, supra. With respect to the business exception, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated, "[w]here a person in the lawful pursuit of his business, and without blame, is violently assaulted by one who manifestly and maliciously intends and endeavors to kill him, the person so assaulted" has no duty to retreat, even though it may be within his power to do so, and "may kill his assailant if necessary to save his own life or prevent enormous bodily harm." Erwin v. State (1876), 29 Ohio St. 186 , paragraph five of the syllabus. | 1 | 1 |
Chung v. Kaonohi Center Co.green2 sentences1990If factual data are presented which furnish a basis for compilation of probable loss of profits, evidence of future profits should be admitted and its weight, if any, should be left to the jury.”); Chung v. Kaonohi Center Co. (1980), 62 Hawaii 594, 606 , 618 P. 2d 283, 291 (“[W]here a plaintiff can show future profits in a new or unestablished business with reasonable certainty, damages for loss of such profits may be awarded.”); Fera v. Village Plaza, Inc. (1976), 396 Mich. 639 , 242 N.W. 2d 372 (Although future profits as an element of damages may be more possible to prove with reasonable ac 1990If factual data are presented which furnish a basis for compilation of probable loss of profits, evidence of future profits should be admitted and its weight, if any, should be left to the jury.”); Chung v. Kaonohi Center Co. (1980), 62 Hawaii 594, 606 , 618 P. 2d 283, 291 (“[W]here a plaintiff can show future profits in a new or unestablished business with reasonable certainty, damages for loss of such profits may be awarded.”); Fera v. Village Plaza, Inc. (1976), 396 Mich. 639 , 242 N.W. 2d 372 (Although future profits as an element of damages may be more possible to prove with reasonable ac | 1 | 1 |
Harsha v. State Savings Bankgreen1 sentence1990Accordingly, we hold, along with what appears to be a majority of jurisdictions reaching the issue, that the new business rule is not the law of our state.”); Drews Co. v. Ledwith-Wolfe Associates (1988), 296 S.C. 207 , 210, 371 S.E. 2d 532 , 534 (“[N]ew business rule [should be viewed] as a rule of evidentiary sufficiency rather than an automatic bar to recovery of lost profits by a new business.”); Harsha v. State Savings Bank (Iowa 1984), 346 N.W. 2d 791, 798 (“The new business rule is not absolute. | 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. Davis
green
1 sentence2018Id. at ¶ 29, citing State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2008-Ohio-2 , 880 N.E.2d 31 , ¶ 171. {¶55} Aaron Alexander (“Alexander”) was called by the state to testify regarding the prison call records. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Blasco v. Mislik
green
2 sentences2014Although he specifically argues that the lower court “shirked its statutory obligation to divide the assets of the parties,” this is the type of issue that is raised upon a direct appeal.1 Blasco v. Mislik, 69 Ohio St.2d 684, 686 , 433 N.E.2d 612 1 . 2014Although he specifically argues that the lower court “shirked its statutory obligation to divide the assets of the parties,” this is the type of issue that is raised upon a direct appeal.1 Blasco v. Mislik, 69 Ohio St.2d 684, 686 , 433 N.E.2d 612 1 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts. Reading Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania
green
2 sentences2009Gross Receipts (1872), 82 U.S. 284 , 15 Wall. 284, 296 , 21 L.Ed. 164 (“nor is it deniable that gross receipts may be a measure of proximate value” of a business privilege). {¶ 17} Second, in this context, we have long recognized a distinction between a tax upon a certain factor and a tax upon a privilege measured by that factor. 2009Gross Receipts (1872), 82 U.S. 284 , 15 Wall. 284, 296 , 21 L.Ed. 164 (“nor is it deniable that gross receipts may be a measure of proximate value” of a business privilege). {¶ 17} Second, in this context, we have long recognized a distinction between a tax upon a certain factor and a tax upon a privilege measured by that factor. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Drews Co., Inc. v. LEDWITH-WOLFE ASSOC., INC.
green
2 sentences1990Accordingly, we hold, along with what appears to be a majority of jurisdictions reaching the issue, that the new business rule is not the law of our state.”); Drews Co. v. Ledwith-Wolfe Associates (1988), 296 S.C. 207 , 210, 371 S.E. 2d 532 , 534 (“[N]ew business rule [should be viewed] as a rule of evidentiary sufficiency rather than an automatic bar to recovery of lost profits by a new business.”); Harsha v. State Savings Bank (Iowa 1984), 346 N.W. 2d 791, 798 (“The new business rule is not absolute. 1990Accordingly, we hold, along with what appears to be a majority of jurisdictions reaching the issue, that the new business rule is not the law of our state.”); Drews Co. v. Ledwith-Wolfe Associates (1988), 296 S.C. 207 , 210, 371 S.E. 2d 532 , 534 (“[N]ew business rule [should be viewed] as a rule of evidentiary sufficiency rather than an automatic bar to recovery of lost profits by a new business.”); Harsha v. State Savings Bank (Iowa 1984), 346 N.W. 2d 791, 798 (“The new business rule is not absolute. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Fera v. Village Plaza, Inc
green
2 sentences1990If factual data are presented which furnish a basis for compilation of probable loss of profits, evidence of future profits should be admitted and its weight, if any, should be left to the jury.”); Chung v. Kaonohi Center Co. (1980), 62 Hawaii 594, 606 , 618 P. 2d 283, 291 (“[W]here a plaintiff can show future profits in a new or unestablished business with reasonable certainty, damages for loss of such profits may be awarded.”); Fera v. Village Plaza, Inc. (1976), 396 Mich. 639 , 242 N.W. 2d 372 (Although future profits as an element of damages may be more possible to prove with reasonable ac 1990If factual data are presented which furnish a basis for compilation of probable loss of profits, evidence of future profits should be admitted and its weight, if any, should be left to the jury.”); Chung v. Kaonohi Center Co. (1980), 62 Hawaii 594, 606 , 618 P. 2d 283, 291 (“[W]here a plaintiff can show future profits in a new or unestablished business with reasonable certainty, damages for loss of such profits may be awarded.”); Fera v. Village Plaza, Inc. (1976), 396 Mich. 639 , 242 N.W. 2d 372 (Although future profits as an element of damages may be more possible to prove with reasonable ac | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.