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 2005–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kenney v. Carrollgreen1 sentence2019See Kenney, 2017-Ohio-354 at ¶ 27 , quoting Batcher, 2013-Ohio-4677 at ¶ 10 . {¶26} The decision of the trial court demonstrates that, contrary to its ruling, the court did not truly sustain Father’s objection to the absence of a change in circumstances, and omitted ruling on Father’s objection to the lack of an evidentiary hearing altogether. | 1 | 1 |
Batcher v. Piercegreen1 sentence2019See Kenney, 2017-Ohio-354 at ¶ 27 , quoting Batcher, 2013-Ohio-4677 at ¶ 10 . {¶26} The decision of the trial court demonstrates that, contrary to its ruling, the court did not truly sustain Father’s objection to the absence of a change in circumstances, and omitted ruling on Father’s objection to the lack of an evidentiary hearing altogether. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Williamsgreen2 sentences2005See In re Williams, 78 Ohio App.3d 556 , 605 N.E.2d 475 ; Linden Med. 2005See In re Williams, 78 Ohio App.3d 556 , 605 N.E.2d 475 ; Linden Med. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boster v. C & M Service, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014No. 2008–CA–57, 2009–Ohio–3765, ¶ 17, citing Boster v. C & M Serv., Inc., 93 Ohio App.3d 523, 526 , 639 N.E.2d 136 (10th Dist.1994) (emphasis in original). {¶51} In light of our previous analysis herein, we find no merit in Appellant's claim that the lack of an evidentiary hearing on his 60(B) motion constituted reversible error under the facts and circumstances of this case. 2014No. 2008–CA–57, 2009–Ohio–3765, ¶ 17, citing Boster v. C & M Serv., Inc., 93 Ohio App.3d 523, 526 , 639 N.E.2d 136 (10th Dist.1994) (emphasis in original). {¶51} In light of our previous analysis herein, we find no merit in Appellant's claim that the lack of an evidentiary hearing on his 60(B) motion constituted reversible error under the facts and circumstances of this case. | 2 | 2012–2014 |
Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board
green
1 sentence2008When applying the abuse of discretion standard, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board (1993), 66 Ohio St. 3d 619 , 621 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner
green
1 sentence2006II. {¶ 33} The Second Assignment asserts error in the lack of an evidentiary hearing. {¶ 34} We find that Appellant, as in State v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 149 , failed to allege operative facts warranting relief from judgment requiring an evidentiary hearing. {¶ 35} No abuse of discretion in this regard is present. {¶ 36} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed at Appellant's costs. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.