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 1 courts 1990–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kahn v. Kahngreen2 sentences1999See Kahn v. Kahn (1987), 42 Ohio App.3d 61 , 65 ("A steadfast rule resulting in a gift to one spouse every time property is titled jointly encourages married couples to isolate separate property in contemplation of divorce.") In this case, the parties gave different accounts of why appellant's name was added to the deed of the home. 1996R.C. 3105.171(H) 1 ; see Kahn v. Kahn (1987), 42 Ohio App.3d 61, 65 , 536 N.E .2d 678, 683 (“A steadfast rule resulting in a gift to one spouse every time property is titled jointly encourages married couples to isolate separate property in contemplation of divorce.”). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reynolds v. City of Oakwood
green
2 sentences2004In doing so, the court held that: {¶ 22} "Unquestionably, the use of lights and a siren is a significant factor to be considered in conjunction with all other circumstances, but the potential absurdity of a steadfast rule denying liability when such devices are used is manifest. * * * {¶ 23} "The term `willful and wanton misconduct' connotes behavior demonstrating a deliberate or reckless disregard for the safety of others, but because the line between such misconduct and ordinary negligence is sometimes a fine one depending on the particular facts of a case, it is generally recognized that su 1990In doing so, the court held that: “Unquestionably, the use of lights and a siren is a significant factor to be considered in conjunction with all other circumstances, but the potential absurdity of a steadfast rule denying liability when such devices are used is manifest. << * * * “The term ‘wilful and wanton misconduct’ connotes behavior demonstrating a deliberate or reckless disregard for the safety of others, but because the line between such misconduct and ordinary negligence is sometimes a fine one depending on the particular facts of a case, it is generally recognized that such issue is | 2 | 1990–2004 |
State v. Stanley
green
1 sentence2020Mahoning No. 14 MA 0106, 2016-Ohio-7284, ¶ 22 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Peoples v. City of Willoughby
green
1 sentence2004In doing so, the court held that: {¶ 22} "Unquestionably, the use of lights and a siren is a significant factor to be considered in conjunction with all other circumstances, but the potential absurdity of a steadfast rule denying liability when such devices are used is manifest. * * * {¶ 23} "The term `willful and wanton misconduct' connotes behavior demonstrating a deliberate or reckless disregard for the safety of others, but because the line between such misconduct and ordinary negligence is sometimes a fine one depending on the particular facts of a case, it is generally recognized that su | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Helton v. Helton
green
1 sentence2002Helton , 114 Ohio App.3d at 686 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.