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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
N. Star Med. Research, L.L.C. v. Kozlovichgreen2 sentences2026Research, L.L.C., 2025-Ohio-5410, at ¶ 26 (8th Dist.). 2026Research, L.L.C. v. Kozlovich, 2025-Ohio-5410, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.). | 2 | 2 |
State ex rel. Daggett v. Gessamangreen1 sentence2025Daggett v. Gessaman, 34 Ohio St. 2d 55, 57 (1973). “‘There is no rule of law requiring that a trial court expressly rule on every pretrial motion before it. “[W]hen a trial court fails to rule on a pretrial motion, it may ordinarily be presumed that the court overruled it.”’” Bluhm v. Corrado, 2007-Ohio-6566, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.), quoting Omerza v. Bryant & Stratton, 2007-Ohio-5216, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.), citing State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Omerza v. Bryant, 2006-L-147 (9-28-2007)green1 sentence2025Daggett v. Gessaman, 34 Ohio St. 2d 55, 57 (1973). “‘There is no rule of law requiring that a trial court expressly rule on every pretrial motion before it. “[W]hen a trial court fails to rule on a pretrial motion, it may ordinarily be presumed that the court overruled it.”’” Bluhm v. Corrado, 2007-Ohio-6566, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.), quoting Omerza v. Bryant & Stratton, 2007-Ohio-5216, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.), citing State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Bluhm v. Corrado, 2007-A-0037 (12-7-2007)green1 sentence2025Daggett v. Gessaman, 34 Ohio St. 2d 55, 57 (1973). “‘There is no rule of law requiring that a trial court expressly rule on every pretrial motion before it. “[W]hen a trial court fails to rule on a pretrial motion, it may ordinarily be presumed that the court overruled it.”’” Bluhm v. Corrado, 2007-Ohio-6566, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.), quoting Omerza v. Bryant & Stratton, 2007-Ohio-5216, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.), citing State ex rel. | 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 ex rel. V Companies v. Marshall
green
2 sentences2007The V Cos. v. Marshall (1988), 81 Ohio St.3d 467 , 469 . 2007The V Cos. v. Marshall (1988), 81 Ohio St.3d 467 , 469 . | 3 | 2007–2007 |
State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall
green
1 sentence2007The V Cos. v. Marshall , 81 Ohio St.3d 467 , 469 , 1998-Ohio-0329 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.