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 1982–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Athens v. Testagreen1 sentence2019See Athens v. Testa, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-144, 2019-Ohio-277, ¶ 21 ; Ohio Serv. | 1 | 1 |
Standard Oil Company of Texas v. Lopeno Gas Companygreen1 sentence1982See, also, Standard Oil Co. of Texas v. Lopeno Gas Co. (C.A. 5, 1957), 240 F. 2d 504 ; Bright v. Nunn (C.A. 6, 1971), 448 F. 2d 245 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
George P. Ballas Buick-GMC, Inc. v. Taylor Buick, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Thus, “it is generally improper to dispose of a case on the merits following a hearing for a preliminary injunction without consolidating that hearing with a trial on the merits or otherwise giving notice to counsel that the merits would be considered.” George P. Ballas Buick-GMC, Inc. v. Taylor Buick, Inc., 5 Ohio App.3d 71, 74 , 449 N.E.2d 403 (6th Dist.1982). 2019However, " 'it is generally improper to dispose of a case on the merits following a hearing for a preliminary injunction without consolidating that hearing with a trial on the merits or otherwise giving notice to counsel that the merits would be considered.' " Cairelli v. Brunner, 10th Dist. No. 15AP- 854, 2016-Ohio-5535, ¶ 24 , quoting Seasonings Etcetera, Inc. v. Nay, 10th Dist. No. 92AP- 1056 (Feb. 23, 1993), citing George P. Ballas Buick-GMC, Inc. v. Taylor Buick, Inc., 5 Ohio App.3d 71 (6th Dist.1982). | 5 | 2006–2021 |
Turoff v. Stefanac
green
2 sentences2016However, “it is generally improper to dispose of a case on the merits following a hearing for a preliminary injunction without consolidating that hearing with a trial on the merits or otherwise giving notice to counsel that the merits would be considered.” Seasonings Etcetera, Inc. v. Nay (Feb. 23, 1993), Franklin App. No. 92AP1056, citing George P. Ballas Buick-GMC, Inc. v. Taylor Buick, Inc. (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 71 ; Turoff v. Stefanac (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 227 . 2006However, "it is generally improper to dispose of a case on the merits following a hearing for a preliminary injunction without consolidating that hearing with a trial on the merits or otherwise giving notice to counsel that the merits would be considered." Seasonings Etcetera, Inc. v. Nay (Feb. 23, 1993), Franklin App. No. 92AP1056, citing George P. Ballas Buick-GMC, Inc. v. Taylor Buick, Inc. (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 71 ; Turoff v. Stefanac (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 227 . | 2 | 2006–2016 |
Cairelli v. Brunner
green
1 sentence2019However, " 'it is generally improper to dispose of a case on the merits following a hearing for a preliminary injunction without consolidating that hearing with a trial on the merits or otherwise giving notice to counsel that the merits would be considered.' " Cairelli v. Brunner, 10th Dist. No. 15AP- 854, 2016-Ohio-5535, ¶ 24 , quoting Seasonings Etcetera, Inc. v. Nay, 10th Dist. No. 92AP- 1056 (Feb. 23, 1993), citing George P. Ballas Buick-GMC, Inc. v. Taylor Buick, Inc., 5 Ohio App.3d 71 (6th Dist.1982). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Bright v. Nunn
green
1 sentence1982See, also, Standard Oil Co. of Texas v. Lopeno Gas Co. (C.A. 5, 1957), 240 F. 2d 504 ; Bright v. Nunn (C.A. 6, 1971), 448 F. 2d 245 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |