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 3 courts 1996–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc.
yellow
2 sentences2007ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR "THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY GRANTED APPELLEE RUBBERMAID'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT EXISTS AS TO EACH OF THE THREE PRONGS OF THE FYFFE TEST." {¶ 4} Appellant argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to each of the three prongs of the test set forth in Fyffe v. Jeno Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115 . 2001Specifically, genuine issues of fact existed as to two of the three prongs of the test establishing intent in intentional workplace torts, as enunciated in Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115 , 570 N.E.2d 1108 . | 3 | 2001–2007 |
Strack v. Westfield Companies
green
2 sentences2017Strack v. Westfield Cos. , 33 Ohio App.3d 336 , 337, 515 N.E.2d 1005 (9th Dist.1986) ; Elwert v. Pilot Life Ins. 2017Strack v. Westfield Cos. , 33 Ohio App.3d 336 , 337, 515 N.E.2d 1005 (9th Dist.1986) ; Elwert v. Pilot Life Ins. | 2 | 1996–2017 |
Reliance Electric Co. v. Luecke
green
1 sentence1999Applying the Southern Machine test, the court concluded that the three prongs of the test were met because (1) the nonresident guarantor voluntarily created an indebtedness in Ohio by giving a guaranty to an Ohio resident; (2) the Ohio default by the debtor would not have arisen in Ohio had the guarantor not signed the guaranty; and (3) the guarantor had actively participated in negotiating the underlying obligation and the guaranty thus creating a substantial connection with Ohio and making the exercise of jurisdiction over the debtor reasonable under the Due Process Clause. 7 Id. at 920-921 | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.