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 1984–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jacobs v. Great S. Shopping Ctr., L.L.C.green1 sentence2026Consistent with this precedent, I would hold that Macedonia Cod.Ord. 521.06(a) did not impose a duty on Smith for purposes of the Johnsons’ negligence claims. {¶31} Even if Macedonia Cod.Ord. 521.06(a) imposed a duty on Smith, courts have concluded that “[a]n owner of land abutting a public sidewalk will be liable for failure to comply with that ordinance only if the municipality notifies the landowner of the violation.” (Emphasis added.) Donnelly at ¶ 16, 18 (analyzing an identical ordinance and collecting cases); see Jacobs at ¶ 23-24 (acknowledging that some courts recognize a notice requir | 1 | 1 |
Donnelly v. Bereagreen1 sentence2026Consistent with this precedent, I would hold that Macedonia Cod.Ord. 521.06(a) did not impose a duty on Smith for purposes of the Johnsons’ negligence claims. {¶31} Even if Macedonia Cod.Ord. 521.06(a) imposed a duty on Smith, courts have concluded that “[a]n owner of land abutting a public sidewalk will be liable for failure to comply with that ordinance only if the municipality notifies the landowner of the violation.” (Emphasis added.) Donnelly at ¶ 16, 18 (analyzing an identical ordinance and collecting cases); see Jacobs at ¶ 23-24 (acknowledging that some courts recognize a notice requir | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cline v. American Aggregates Corp.
green
2 sentences2008That principle would seem to be dispositive of the case sub judice, however, the Ohio Supreme Court overruled Frazier in Cline v. American Aggregates Corp. (1984) 15 Ohio St.3d 384 , 474 N.E.2d 324 , at the syllabus. 2008That principle would seem to be dispositive of the case sub judice, however, the Ohio Supreme Court overruled Frazier in Cline v. American Aggregates Corp. (1984) 15 Ohio St.3d 384 , 474 N.E.2d 324 , at the syllabus. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re Appropriation for Hwy. Purposes of Lands of Arnold
green
1 sentence2008Id. at 65 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Village of Moreland Hills
green
1 sentence2008Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Moreland Hills , 107 Ohio St.3d 339 , 2006-Ohio-4 , ¶ 11 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Central Motors Corp. v. City of Pepper Pike
green
1 sentence2002Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d at 584 , 653 N.E.2d 639 . {¶ 15} A landowner can challenge the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance in two ways. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Zents v. Board of Commissioners
green
1 sentence1984As for the county commissioners, since the abrogation of sovereign immunity for counties in Zents v. Bd. of Commrs. (1984), 9 Ohio St. 3d 204 , they are subject to the same common-law duties as a private rural landowner. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.