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 1954–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Geroc v. Ohio Veterinary Medical Board
green
2 sentences2012No. 96APD05-687, 1997 WL 275495 (May 20, 1997), citing Geroc v. Ohio Veterinary Medical Bd., 37 Ohio App.3d 192, 199 , 525 N.E.2d 501 (1987), quoting Keaton v. State, 2 Ohio App.3d 480, 483 , 442 N.E.2d 1315 (1981). 2012No. 96APD05-687, 1997 WL 275495 (May 20, 1997), citing Geroc v. Ohio Veterinary Medical Bd., 37 Ohio App.3d 192, 199 , 525 N.E.2d 501 (1987), quoting Keaton v. State, 2 Ohio App.3d 480, 483 , 442 N.E.2d 1315 (1981). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Keaton v. State
green
2 sentences2012No. 96APD05-687, 1997 WL 275495 (May 20, 1997), citing Geroc v. Ohio Veterinary Medical Bd., 37 Ohio App.3d 192, 199 , 525 N.E.2d 501 (1987), quoting Keaton v. State, 2 Ohio App.3d 480, 483 , 442 N.E.2d 1315 (1981). 2012No. 96APD05-687, 1997 WL 275495 (May 20, 1997), citing Geroc v. Ohio Veterinary Medical Bd., 37 Ohio App.3d 192, 199 , 525 N.E.2d 501 (1987), quoting Keaton v. State, 2 Ohio App.3d 480, 483 , 442 N.E.2d 1315 (1981). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Swoboda v. Brown
green
1 sentence2002Id. {¶ 21} The trial court in this matter properly instructed the jury that "[w]hen traffic control signals are not present, the driver of a vehicle must yield the right of way to a person crossing the roadway within a crosswalk. . . . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Chambers v. St. Mary's School
green
2 sentences1999Chambers, supra, 82 Ohio St.3d at 565 , 697 N.E.2d at 200-201 . 1999Chambers, supra, 82 Ohio St.3d at 565 , 697 N.E.2d at 200-201 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hernandez v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998Hernandez v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 302, 304 , 649 N.E.2d 1215, 1216 . 1998Hernandez v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 302, 304 , 649 N.E.2d 1215, 1216 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Satterthwaite v. Morgan
green
1 sentence1957“In a situation where a party charged with the violation of a mandatory provision of the traffic code offers substantial proof tending to excuse his failure to comply with the statute, a question for the jury is presented for determination under proper instructions of the court. ’ ’ To the same effect is Satterthwaite v. Morgan, 141 Ohio St., 447 , 48 N. E. (2d), 653, paragraphs two and three of the syllabus of which are as follows: *391 “2. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Crucible Steel Forge Co. v. Moir
neutral
1 sentence1954Among instances where the violation of a legislative enactment constituted negligence per se are: Violation of Section 6307-25, General Code (Section 4511.25, Revised Code)’, driving a vehicle on the left half of the roadway except under certain circumstances (see Brandt v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc., 153 Ohio St., 429 , 92 N. E. [2d], 1; Mahoning Savings & Trust Co., Exr., v. Kellner, Admx., 131 Ohio St., 69 , 1 N. E. [2d], 616); violation of Section 1027, General Code (Section 4107.23, Revised Code), requiring that keys, bolts, set screws and all parts of wheels, shafting or other revolvi | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Brandt v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc.
green
1 sentence1954Among instances where the violation of a legislative enactment constituted negligence per se are: Violation of Section 6307-25, General Code (Section 4511.25, Revised Code)’, driving a vehicle on the left half of the roadway except under certain circumstances (see Brandt v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc., 153 Ohio St., 429 , 92 N. E. [2d], 1; Mahoning Savings & Trust Co., Exr., v. Kellner, Admx., 131 Ohio St., 69 , 1 N. E. [2d], 616); violation of Section 1027, General Code (Section 4107.23, Revised Code), requiring that keys, bolts, set screws and all parts of wheels, shafting or other revolvi | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Mahoning Savings & Trust Co. v. Kellner
neutral
1 sentence1954Among instances where the violation of a legislative enactment constituted negligence per se are: Violation of Section 6307-25, General Code (Section 4511.25, Revised Code)’, driving a vehicle on the left half of the roadway except under certain circumstances (see Brandt v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc., 153 Ohio St., 429 , 92 N. E. [2d], 1; Mahoning Savings & Trust Co., Exr., v. Kellner, Admx., 131 Ohio St., 69 , 1 N. E. [2d], 616); violation of Section 1027, General Code (Section 4107.23, Revised Code), requiring that keys, bolts, set screws and all parts of wheels, shafting or other revolvi | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.