Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments

Ohio Case Commentaries

Noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) Is Not an Affirmative Defense; Institutional‑Cashier Certification of Inmate Account Statements Is Mandatory for Fee-Waiver Requests

Noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) Is Not an Affirmative Defense; Institutional‑Cashier Certification of Inmate Account Statements Is Mandatory for Fee-Waiver Requests

Date: Sep 25, 2025
Noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) Is Not an Affirmative Defense; Institutional‑Cashier Certification of Inmate Account Statements Is Mandatory for Fee-Waiver Requests Introduction This commentary...
No Committee, No Replacement: Strict Pre-Filing Committee-of-Five Designation Required to Fill Nonpartisan Candidate Vacancies under R.C. 3513.31(F)

No Committee, No Replacement: Strict Pre-Filing Committee-of-Five Designation Required to Fill Nonpartisan Candidate Vacancies under R.C. 3513.31(F)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
No Committee, No Replacement: Strict Pre-Filing Committee-of-Five Designation Required to Fill Nonpartisan Candidate Vacancies under R.C. 3513.31(F) Introduction In State ex rel. Vermilion Campaign...
Ohio Supreme Court mandates facility‑specific “rate for direct care costs” drives 60% allocation to nursing‑home quality pool under R.C. 5165.26(E)

Ohio Supreme Court mandates facility‑specific “rate for direct care costs” drives 60% allocation to nursing‑home quality pool under R.C. 5165.26(E)

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Facility‑Specific “Rate for Direct Care Costs,” Not Group “Price,” Controls the 60% Quality‑Pool Allocation: A Textualist Course Correction in Medicaid Nursing‑Home Payments Case Overview Decision:...
Quo Warranto Is the Exclusive Vehicle to Remove a Committee-Appointed Township Trustee; Probate Judge’s Duty to Appoint under R.C. 503.24 Arises Only When a Vacancy Exists

Quo Warranto Is the Exclusive Vehicle to Remove a Committee-Appointed Township Trustee; Probate Judge’s Duty to Appoint under R.C. 503.24 Arises Only When a Vacancy Exists

Date: Aug 31, 2025
Quo Warranto Is the Exclusive Vehicle to Remove a Committee-Appointed Township Trustee; Probate Judge’s Duty to Appoint under R.C. 503.24 Arises Only When a Vacancy Exists Case: State ex rel....
Immediate Applicability of H.B. 265’s Public-Records Mandamus Prerequisites: Ohio Supreme Court Mandates Dismissal Without Pre‑Suit Complaint Affirmation

Immediate Applicability of H.B. 265’s Public-Records Mandamus Prerequisites: Ohio Supreme Court Mandates Dismissal Without Pre‑Suit Complaint Affirmation

Date: Aug 31, 2025
Immediate Applicability of H.B. 265’s Public-Records Mandamus Prerequisites: Ohio Supreme Court Mandates Dismissal Without Pre‑Suit Complaint Affirmation Case: State ex rel. Jordan v. Dept. of...
Nonbypassable Transmission Riders Under R.C. 4928.05: Ohio Supreme Court Affirms PUCO’s Discretion and Demands Particularized Harm for Discovery Challenges

Nonbypassable Transmission Riders Under R.C. 4928.05: Ohio Supreme Court Affirms PUCO’s Discretion and Demands Particularized Harm for Discovery Challenges

Date: Aug 31, 2025
Nonbypassable Transmission Riders Under R.C. 4928.05: Ohio Supreme Court Affirms PUCO’s Discretion and Demands Particularized Harm for Discovery Challenges Introduction In In re Application of Ohio...
Implicit Compliance with Adm.Code 4121-3-34(D)(3)(i): Hearing Officers Need Not Itemize Every Psychological Restriction in PTD Orders

Implicit Compliance with Adm.Code 4121-3-34(D)(3)(i): Hearing Officers Need Not Itemize Every Psychological Restriction in PTD Orders

Date: Aug 31, 2025
Implicit Compliance with Adm.Code 4121-3-34(D)(3)(i): Hearing Officers Need Not Itemize Every Psychological Restriction in PTD Orders Introduction In State ex rel. Urban v. Wano Expiditing, Inc.,...
“No-Offset” Rule for Significantly Excessive Earnings:  Supreme Court of Ohio Clarifies R.C. 4928.143(F)

“No-Offset” Rule for Significantly Excessive Earnings: Supreme Court of Ohio Clarifies R.C. 4928.143(F)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
“No-Offset” Rule for Significantly Excessive Earnings In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co. (2025-Ohio-2953) Introduction The Supreme Court of Ohio, in In re Application of Dayton Power &...
E.A.K.M. v. M.A.M.: Guardian-Ad-Litem Fee Orders Are Not Immediately Appealable Under R.C. 2505.02(B)

E.A.K.M. v. M.A.M.: Guardian-Ad-Litem Fee Orders Are Not Immediately Appealable Under R.C. 2505.02(B)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
E.A.K.M. v. M.A.M. (2025-Ohio-2946): Guardian-Ad-Litem Fee Orders Are Not Immediately Appealable Under R.C. 2505.02(B) I. Introduction The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified a recurring procedural...
“Probate Courts Retain Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Estate Counsel Fees Despite Parallel Civil Actions” – Comment on Golub v. Werren (2025-Ohio-2950)

“Probate Courts Retain Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Estate Counsel Fees Despite Parallel Civil Actions” – Comment on Golub v. Werren (2025-Ohio-2950)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
Probate Courts Retain Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Estate Counsel Fees Despite Parallel Civil Actions – A Detailed Commentary on Golub v. Werren (2025-Ohio-2950) I. Introduction In Golub v. Werren,...
The “Reasonably-Calculated Address” Rule: Hunt v. Alderman and the Due-Process Overlay on Ohio Civ.R. 4.1

The “Reasonably-Calculated Address” Rule: Hunt v. Alderman and the Due-Process Overlay on Ohio Civ.R. 4.1

Date: Aug 25, 2025
The “Reasonably-Calculated Address” Rule: Hunt v. Alderman (2025-Ohio-2944) Introduction Hunt v. Alderman, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2944, is the Supreme Court of Ohio’s latest pronouncement on the...
“From Vexatious-Litigator Thresholds to Municipal-Zoning Deference” – A Commentary on the 08/20/2025 Ohio Supreme Court Case Announcements

“From Vexatious-Litigator Thresholds to Municipal-Zoning Deference” – A Commentary on the 08/20/2025 Ohio Supreme Court Case Announcements

Date: Aug 25, 2025
“From Vexatious-Litigator Thresholds to Municipal-Zoning Deference” – A Comprehensive Commentary on the Ohio Supreme Court’s 08 / 20 / 2025 Case Announcements (2025-Ohio-2934) 1. Introduction On 20...
No Affirmative Duty to Disclose Materially Increased Risk in Arm’s-Length Surety and Guaranty Transactions: Comment on Huntington Natl. Bank v. Schneider (2025-Ohio-2920)

No Affirmative Duty to Disclose Materially Increased Risk in Arm’s-Length Surety and Guaranty Transactions: Comment on Huntington Natl. Bank v. Schneider (2025-Ohio-2920)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
No Affirmative Duty to Disclose Materially Increased Risk in Arm’s-Length Surety and Guaranty Transactions Commentary on Huntington Natl. Bank v. Schneider, 2025-Ohio-2920 (Supreme Court of Ohio) I....
“Clearly Proscribed Conduct” Rule: Ohio Supreme Court Narrows Void-for-Vagueness Challenges in Huron v. Kisil (2025)

“Clearly Proscribed Conduct” Rule: Ohio Supreme Court Narrows Void-for-Vagueness Challenges in Huron v. Kisil (2025)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
“Clearly Proscribed Conduct” Rule: Ohio Supreme Court Narrows Void-for-Vagueness Challenges in Huron v. Kisil (2025) 1. Introduction Huron v. Kisil, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2921, marks the Supreme...
State ex rel. Gordon v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas (2025): Clarifying the Procedural Boundaries of Extraordinary Writs and Civ.R. 12(B)(6) Review

State ex rel. Gordon v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas (2025): Clarifying the Procedural Boundaries of Extraordinary Writs and Civ.R. 12(B)(6) Review

Date: Aug 25, 2025
State ex rel. Gordon v. Summit County Court of Common Pleas (2025-Ohio-2927): Clarifying the Procedural Boundaries of Extraordinary Writs and Civ.R. 12(B)(6) Review Introduction In State ex rel....
Mandamus, Faretta, and Jurisdiction:  Denial of the Right to Self-Representation is a Non-Jurisdictional Error – State ex rel. Johnson v. McNamara (2025-Ohio-2891)

Mandamus, Faretta, and Jurisdiction: Denial of the Right to Self-Representation is a Non-Jurisdictional Error – State ex rel. Johnson v. McNamara (2025-Ohio-2891)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
Mandamus, Faretta, and Jurisdiction: Denial of the Right to Self-Representation is a Non-Jurisdictional Error – State ex rel. Johnson v. McNamara (2025-Ohio-2891) Introduction State ex rel. Johnson...
“Stated Prison Term” Redefined: Ohio Supreme Court Bars Judicial Release for Pre-S.B. 2 Indefinite Sentences

“Stated Prison Term” Redefined: Ohio Supreme Court Bars Judicial Release for Pre-S.B. 2 Indefinite Sentences

Date: Aug 25, 2025
“Stated Prison Term” Redefined: Ohio Supreme Court Bars Judicial Release for Pre-S.B. 2 Indefinite Sentences 1. Introduction State v. Staffrey, 2025-Ohio-2889, presented the Supreme Court of Ohio...

        “No Discharge Without Restitution” – The Supreme Court of Ohio Clarifies
        that Restitution Remains a Criminal Sanction for Record-Sealing Purposes
        (State v. T.W.C., 2025-Ohio-2890)

“No Discharge Without Restitution” – The Supreme Court of Ohio Clarifies that Restitution Remains a Criminal Sanction for Record-Sealing Purposes (State v. T.W.C., 2025-Ohio-2890)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
“No Discharge Without Restitution” – The Supreme Court of Ohio Clarifies that Restitution Remains a Criminal Sanction for Record-Sealing Purposes (State v. T.W.C., 2025-Ohio-2890) 1. Introduction...
Sixth Amendment Trial Errors Are Nonjurisdictional; Mandamus Will Not Lie to Vacate Convictions: Commentary on State ex rel. Johnson v. McNamara, 2025-Ohio-2891

Sixth Amendment Trial Errors Are Nonjurisdictional; Mandamus Will Not Lie to Vacate Convictions: Commentary on State ex rel. Johnson v. McNamara, 2025-Ohio-2891

Date: Aug 20, 2025
Sixth Amendment Trial Errors Are Nonjurisdictional; Mandamus Will Not Lie to Vacate Convictions: Commentary on State ex rel. Johnson v. McNamara, 2025-Ohio-2891 Introduction In State ex rel. Johnson...
“Equity Does Not Rescue Negligence” – The New Ohio Rule on Untimely Lease-Renewal Options (Ashland Global Holdings, Inc. v. SuperAsh Remainderman, Ltd. Partnership, 2025-Ohio-2835)

“Equity Does Not Rescue Negligence” – The New Ohio Rule on Untimely Lease-Renewal Options (Ashland Global Holdings, Inc. v. SuperAsh Remainderman, Ltd. Partnership, 2025-Ohio-2835)

Date: Aug 19, 2025
“Equity Does Not Rescue Negligence” – The New Ohio Rule on Untimely Lease-Renewal Options A Commentary on Ashland Global Holdings, Inc. v. SuperAsh Remainderman, Ltd. Partnership, 2025-Ohio-2835 1....
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert