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 2 courts 1986–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Morning Journalgreen2 sentences2013We agree. {¶23} In assessing whether summary judgment was properly granted based on the fair report privilege, we must determine “whether reasonable minds, upon reviewing the facts in the case, could reach ‘but one conclusion’” as to whether the depiction of Sullins on the Warrant Unit program was “substantially accurate.” Young v. Morning Journal, 76 Ohio St.3d 627, 628 , 669 N.E.2d 1136 (1996). 2013We agree. {¶23} In assessing whether summary judgment was properly granted based on the fair report privilege, we must determine “whether reasonable minds, upon reviewing the facts in the case, could reach ‘but one conclusion’” as to whether the depiction of Sullins on the Warrant Unit program was “substantially accurate.” Young v. Morning Journal, 76 Ohio St.3d 627, 628 , 669 N.E.2d 1136 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oney v. Allen
green
2 sentences2016No. No. 15AP-962 6 02AP-1125, 2003-Ohio-2314 , ¶ 15, quoting Oney v. Allen, 39 Ohio St.3d 103 (1988), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 16} However, R.C. 2317.05, or "the fair report privilege," is inapplicable here because the news story was not a report of the return of any indictment, the issuing of any warrant, the arrest of any person accused of crime, or the filing of any affidavit, pleading, or other document in any criminal or civil cause. 2013Daniel Thiel 75 Public Square Suite 650 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.: {¶1} Defendants-appellees WOIO and WUAB (collectively, “WOIO”) have filed a motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, to certify conflict arguing that this court’s August 15, 2013 decision: (1) imposes liability without fault, (2) ignores the lack of evidence showing negligence on the part of WOIO, and (3) is contrary to the Ohio Supreme Court’s application of the fair report privilege in Oney v. Allen, 39 Ohio St.3d 103 , 529 N.E.2d 471 (1988). | 4 | 2003–2016 |
Mastandrea v. Lorain Journal Co.
green
2 sentences2013Mastandrea v. Lorain Journal Co., 65 Ohio App.3d 221, 232 , 583 N.E.2d 984 (11th Dist.1989). 2013Mastandrea v. Lorain Journal Co., 65 Ohio App.3d 221, 232 , 583 N.E.2d 984 (11th Dist.1989). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Jacobs v. Frank
green
1 sentence2008"In a qualified privilege case, `actual malice' is defined as acting with knowledge that the statements are false or acting with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity." Jackson v. Columbus , Ohio St.3d, 2008-Ohio-1041 , ¶ 10 , quoting Jacobs v. Frank (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 111 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Medico, Philip T. v. Time, Inc
green
1 sentence1986The basis for creating the fair report privilege was explained in the case of Medico v. Time, Inc. (C.A. 3, 1981), 643 F. 2d 134 , certiorari denied (1981), 454 U.S. 836 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Medico v. Time, Inc.
green
1 sentence1986The basis for creating the fair report privilege was explained in the case of Medico v. Time, Inc. (C.A. 3, 1981), 643 F. 2d 134 , certiorari denied (1981), 454 U.S. 836 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.