green
Positive treatment
6.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cleveland v. Bradshaw
State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 468 , 812 N.E.2d 970 (2004) (per curiam), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1168 , 125 S.Ct. 1349 , 161 L.Ed.2d 144 (2005); State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 90 , 647 N.E.2d 784, 786 (1995) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Franklin v. Anderson
See, e.g., State v. Mason, 734 N.E.2d 822, 822-23 (Ohio 2000); State v. Dunlap, 730 N.E.2d 985, 986 (Ohio 2000); State v. Ballew, 729 N.E.2d 753, 754-55 (Ohio 2000); State v. Davis, 714 N.E.2d 384, 385-86 (Ohio 1999); Nos. 03-3636/3697 Franklin v. Anderson Page 6 State v. Dennis, 713 N.E.2d 426, 427 (Ohio 1999); State v. Fox, 700 N.E.2d 1253, 1254 (Ohio 1998); State v. Hill, 677 N.E.2d 337, 338 (Ohio 1997); State v. Whalen, 660 N.E.2d 1174, 1175 (Ohio 1996); State v. Reddick, 647 N.E.2d 784, 786 (Ohio 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
George T. Franklin, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Carl S. Anderson, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Mason, 90 Ohio St.3d 66 , 734 N.E.2d 822, 822-23 (2000); State v. Dunlap, 89 Ohio St.3d 277 , 730 N.E.2d 985, 986 (2000); State v. Ballew, 89 Ohio St.3d 204 , 729 N.E.2d 753, 754-55 (2000); State v. Davis, 86 Ohio St.3d 212 , 714 N.E.2d 384, 385-86 (1999); State v. Dennis, 86 Ohio St.3d 201 , 713 N.E.2d 426, 427 (1999); State v. Fox, 83 Ohio St.3d 514 , 700 N.E.2d 1253, 1254 (1998); State v. Hill, 78 Ohio St.3d 174 , 677 N.E.2d 337, 338 (1997); State v. Whalen, 74 Ohio St.3d 633 , 660 N.E.2d 1174, 1175 (1996); State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 , 647 N.E.2d 784, 786 (1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davie v. Mitchell
It held, “we find the state courts relied on an adequate and independent state procedural ground to foreclose review of petitioner’s Mumahan claim.” Id. at 786.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas D. Monzo v. Ron Edwards, Warden
The Ohio Supreme Court shed light on the appropriate focus for determining good cause under Rule 26(B) in State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 , 647 N.E.2d 784, 786 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Pierce
The court of appeals did not find good cause for the untimely filing and denied the application to reopen, citing, inter alia, State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 90-91 , 647 N.E.2d 784, 786 (“applicant *** may not simply rely on the fact that App.R. 26[B] did not exist within the ninety days following journalization” [since other procedures were previously available], and “[l]ack of effort or imagination, and ignorance of the law, SUPREME COURT OF OHIO *** do not automatically establish good cause ***”), and State v. Franklin (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 372 , 650 N.E.2d 447 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Ronnie Wilson v. Pat Hurley
See Monzo, 281 F.3d at 578 (citing State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 , 647 N.E.2d 784, 786 (1995) (“[Rule 26(B)) was intended to allow the belated presentation of colorable claims that defendants/appellants were prevented from presenting timely by particular circumstances.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re A.S., 21782 (6-29-2007)
See State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88 , 91 , 647 N.E.2d 784 , and State v. Brabant (Apr. 17, 1998), Mahoning App. No. 98 CA 37, 1998 WL 201459 , *1 (discussing good cause for *Page 7 motions to reopen and motions for delayed appeal). {¶ 20} Furthermore, A.S. did timely appeal from the revocation of the suspended commitment and the commitment to DYS.
discussed
Cited "see"
Alton Coleman v. Betty Mitchell, Warden
(2×)
See Ohio v. Reddick, 647 N.E. 2d 784, 786 (Ohio 1995). 40 Good cause must be shown for a late filing of a motion for reconsideration under either former Appellate Rules 26 and 14(B) or current Appellate Rule 26(B): "the good-cause requirement of App.R. 26(B) succeeds and incorporates the good-cause requirement of Murnahan and former App.R. 14(B)." Reddick, 647 N.E. 2d at 786 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State ex rel. Carroll v. Corrigan
(2×)
See State v. Carroll (June 10, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62747, unreported, 1993 WL 204587 ; see, also, State v. Carroll (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 87 , 647 N.E.2d 784 , where we affirmed the denial of Carroll’s application to reopen the appeal.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State ex rel. Carroll v. Corrigan
(2×)
See State v. Carroll (June 10, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62747, unreported, 1993 WL 204587 ; see, also, State v. Carroll (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 87 , 647 N.E.2d 784 , where we affirmed the denial of Carroll’s application to reopen the appeal. {¶ 2} In October 1993, Carroll filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the common pleas court denied in 1994. {¶ 3} In 1995, Carroll filed a second petition for postconviction relief in which he requested that his trial court correct his “illegal” sentence.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Van Hook v. Anderson
See also State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 90 , 647 N.E.2d 784 (1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Ohio
v.
Carroll
v.
Carroll
No. 94-2437.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Apr 26, 1995.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and John W. Monroe, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.,
Daniel Carroll, pro se.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.