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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 59 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Sabouri v. Ohio Department of Job & Family Services.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sabouri v. Ohio Department of Job & Family Services Anchor | green | “it is well established that pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and that they are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel.” | 54 |
| 2 | Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Office (Slip Opinion) | green | “the enactment of r.c. 2743.75 created an alternative means to resolve public-records dispute” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.