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 1857–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rakich v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shieldgreen1 sentence2024Rakich, 172 Ohio App.3d 523 at ¶ 1, 4-6, 23 . {¶28} Initially, the Rakich court referred to the rule in Falter stating, “a plaintiff may not recover both the cost of repairs to her vehicle and the difference in the market value of the vehicle immediately before and immediately after the accident” as this would represent overcompensation or double recovery due to overlapping damage measures, emphasizing: “Diminution in market value subsumes the cost of repair.” Id. at ¶ 13. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Michigan v. Bryant
green
1 sentence2017The trial court ruled the standard for admitting an excited utterance was established. {¶34} Even if not dispositive, “standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.” Bryant, 562 U.S. at 358-359 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Jerome Hadley
green
1 sentence2017We also note: “The excited utterance exception, which is at least two centuries old and may in fact have its origins in late 17th century English common law, is without question a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” United States v. Hadley, 431 F.3d 484 (6th Cir.2005). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Greene, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2004)
neutral
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
City of Newark v. Vazirani
green
1 sentence2003The Court ruled that an analysis of the elements in the abstract was proper, overruling Newark v. Vazirani (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 81 , and the language to the contrary in other cases. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Lewis
red
2 sentences1999The court ruled that an analysis of the elements in the abstract was proper, overruling Vazirani and language to the contrary in other cases. 85 Ohio St.3d 632 , 710 N.E.2d 699 , paragraph one of the syllabus. 1999The court ruled that an analysis of the elements in the abstract was proper, overruling Vazirani and language to the contrary in other cases. 85 Ohio St.3d 632 , 710 N.E.2d 699 , paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Louisiana State Bank v. Senecal
green
1 sentence1857So in 13 La. 525, 527 , Louisana State Bank v. Senecal, a controversy arose in relation to the validity of a note transferred to the bank by one Peychard, and it being charged that Peychard, who procured its discount, was a director at the time, and his knowledge became that of the bank; but the court ruled that the defense could not be sustained, though the indorser was present at the board when the note was discounted, yet took no part in this transaction. | 1 | 1857–1857 |
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.