Legal Opinion

Sorrell v. Thevenir

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1994No. Nos. 92-2382 and 93-1041PublishedCited by 107 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtA. William Sweeney, J.

In the cases before us, R.C. 2317.45 is assailed as being unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the following provisions of the Ohio Constitution: Section 16, Article I (due process, right to a remedy and open courts), Section 2, Article I (equal protection), and Section 5, Article I (right to a jury trial). For the reasons that follow, we hold R.C. 2317.45 to be unconstitutional under all of the foregoing constitutional provisions.

In determining the constitutionality of any statute, we begin our analysis with the principle that all legislative enactments enjoy a strong presumption…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Shapiro v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama Ex Rel. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  3. Gaines v. Preterm-Cleveland, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Mominee v. ScherbarthOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Brady v. Safety-Kleen Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by107 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Zoppo v. Homestead InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Charles W. Warren Ruth Warren v. City of Athens, OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
  5. State v. DelvallieOhio Court of Appeals · 2022

102 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API