reasonable relationship test (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

reasonable relationship test in Ohio

6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2026 2 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Hood v. Mercy Healthcare Arizonagreen
azd · 1997 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006See id. {¶ 19} In the instant case, appellees each worked 2,080 hours of straight time and approximately 500 additional hours of overtime in any given year during the relevant time period.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Chapman (Slip Opinion) green
ohio · 2020
2 sentences

2026Thus, prior to addressing Appellant’s first amendment argument, “we apply the reasonable- relationship test, articulated by Jones, to determine whether the condition of community control is reasonably related to rehabilitation, has some relationship to the offense at issue, and relates to criminal conduct and serves the statutory goals of community control.” Wagener at ¶ 15 , citing State v. Chapman, 2020-Ohio-6730, ¶ 23 , citing Jones at 53 .

2022State v. Chapman, 163 Ohio St.3d 290 , 2020-Ohio-6730 , 170 N.E.3d 6, ¶ 23 , citing Jones at 53 .

22022–2026
State v. Jones green
ohio · 1990
2 sentences

2020FRENCH, J., dissents, with an opinion. _________________ 10 January Term, 2020 FRENCH, J., dissenting. {¶ 30} I agree with the majority that we should apply the reasonable- relationship test this court set out in State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51, 53 , 550 N.E.2d 469 (1990), to review the anti-procreation condition that the trial court imposed on appellant, London Chapman.

2020Under Jones, we must consider “whether the condition (1) is reasonably related to rehabilitating the offender, (2) has some relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, and (3) relates to conduct which is criminal or reasonably related to future criminality and serves the statutory ends of probation.” Id.

12020–2020
Silcott v. Dahlberg green
ohio · 1990
1 sentence

2020FRENCH, J., dissents, with an opinion. _________________ 10 January Term, 2020 FRENCH, J., dissenting. {¶ 30} I agree with the majority that we should apply the reasonable- relationship test this court set out in State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51, 53 , 550 N.E.2d 469 (1990), to review the anti-procreation condition that the trial court imposed on appellant, London Chapman.

12020–2020
Turner v. Safley green
scotus · 1987
1 sentence

2004But if an inmate claimant can point to an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests, a court may consider that as evidence that the regulation does not satisfy the reasonable relationship standard.” (Citations omitted.) Id. {¶ 16} Thus, Jones stands for the proposition that probation conditions must be reasonably related to the statutory ends of probation and must not be overbroad.

12004–2004
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. green
scotus · 1926
2 sentences

2001As stated in Forest City Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Eastlake , 8 Since Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co . (1926), 272 U.S. 365 , 47 S.Ct. 114 , 71 L.Ed. 303 , the constitutionality of zoning has not been questioned.

2001As stated in Forest City Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Eastlake , 8 Since Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co . (1926), 272 U.S. 365 , 47 S.Ct. 114 , 71 L.Ed. 303 , the constitutionality of zoning has not been questioned.

12001–2001

Where else courts name it

CA 18 (1980–2025) FL 7 (1981–2017) TX 6 (1984–2007) OH 6 (2001–2026) PA 6 (1988–2022) NY 4 (1980–2010) MA 3 (1988–2015) AL 3 (1997–2010) NJ 3 (1990–2004) LA 2 (2010–2017) WI 2 (1996–2022) IL 2 (1987–1991) WA 2 (2004–2004) AZ 2 (2007–2023) KS 2 (1995–2014) MI 2 (1996–2003) NC 2 (2021–2021) VT 2 (1990–1999) OR 2 (2010–2019)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check