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 1991–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen2 sentences2001See, also, Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 5 OBR 481, 450 N.E.2d 1140 . 2001See, also, Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 5 OBR 481, 450 N.E.2d 1140 . | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences2001As this court has defined this standard, ‘[t]he term “abuse of discretion” connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. * * *’ State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 , 16 O.O.3d 169, 173 , 404 N.E.2d 144, 149 . 2001As this court has defined this standard, ‘[t]he term “abuse of discretion” connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. * * *’ State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 , 16 O.O.3d 169, 173 , 404 N.E.2d 144, 149 . | 3 | 1991–2001 |
Worthington v. Worthington
green
2 sentences1995In In re Jane Doe 1 (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137 , 566 N.E.2d 1181, 1183 , the court wrote: “As the court has defined this standard, ‘the term “abuse of discretion” * * * connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable * * *.’ ” See, also, Worthington v. Worthington (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 73, 76 , 21 OBR 371, 373-374, 488 N.E.2d 150, 153 ; Sandusky Properties v. Aveni (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 273 , 15 OBR 408, 473 N.E.2d 798 , paragraph two of the syllabus. 1995In In re Jane Doe 1 (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137 , 566 N.E.2d 1181, 1183 , the court wrote: “As the court has defined this standard, ‘the term “abuse of discretion” * * * connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable * * *.’ ” See, also, Worthington v. Worthington (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 73, 76 , 21 OBR 371, 373-374, 488 N.E.2d 150, 153 ; Sandusky Properties v. Aveni (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 273 , 15 OBR 408, 473 N.E.2d 798 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 3 | 1992–1995 |
Sandusky Properties v. Aveni
green
2 sentences1995In In re Jane Doe 1 (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137 , 566 N.E.2d 1181, 1183 , the court wrote: “As the court has defined this standard, ‘the term “abuse of discretion” * * * connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable * * *.’ ” See, also, Worthington v. Worthington (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 73, 76 , 21 OBR 371, 373-374, 488 N.E.2d 150, 153 ; Sandusky Properties v. Aveni (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 273 , 15 OBR 408, 473 N.E.2d 798 , paragraph two of the syllabus. 1995In In re Jane Doe 1 (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137 , 566 N.E.2d 1181, 1183 , the court wrote: “As the court has defined this standard, ‘the term “abuse of discretion” * * * connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable * * *.’ ” See, also, Worthington v. Worthington (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 73, 76 , 21 OBR 371, 373-374, 488 N.E.2d 150, 153 ; Sandusky Properties v. Aveni (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 273 , 15 OBR 408, 473 N.E.2d 798 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 3 | 1992–1995 |
In re Jane Doe 1
green
2 sentences1995In In re Jane Doe 1 (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137 , 566 N.E.2d 1181, 1183 , the court wrote: “As the court has defined this standard, ‘the term “abuse of discretion” * * * connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable * * *.’ ” See, also, Worthington v. Worthington (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 73, 76 , 21 OBR 371, 373-374, 488 N.E.2d 150, 153 ; Sandusky Properties v. Aveni (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 273 , 15 OBR 408, 473 N.E.2d 798 , paragraph two of the syllabus. 1995In In re Jane Doe 1 (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137 , 566 N.E.2d 1181, 1183 , the court wrote: “As the court has defined this standard, ‘the term “abuse of discretion” * * * connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable * * *.’ ” See, also, Worthington v. Worthington (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 73, 76 , 21 OBR 371, 373-374, 488 N.E.2d 150, 153 ; Sandusky Properties v. Aveni (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 273 , 15 OBR 408, 473 N.E.2d 798 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 3 | 1992–1995 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
2 sentences2007The Court has defined waiver as `an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.'" Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 . 2007The Court has defined waiver as `an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.'" Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 . | 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.