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.
5 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Mahfoud Ex Rel. Mahfoudgreen2 sentences1996See Nyflot 474 U.S. at 1029 , 106 S.Ct. at 587 [, 88 L.Ed.2d at 569 ]. 1996See Nyflot, 474 U.S. at 1029 , 106 S.Ct. at 587 [ 88 L.Ed.2d at 569 ]. | 2 | 2 |
Nyflot v. Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safetygreen2 sentences1996See Nyflot, 474 U.S. at 1029 , 106 S.Ct. at 587 [ 88 L.Ed.2d at 569 ]. 1996See Nyflot, 474 U.S. at 1029 , 106 S.Ct. at 587 [ 88 L.Ed.2d at 569 ]. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences2022State v. Martin, 2018-Ohio-1705 , 111 N.E.3d 730, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.); Maumee v. Anistik, 69 Ohio St.3d 339 , 632 N.E.2d 497 (1994), syllabus (finding jury instruction appropriate to suggest that defendant believed themself to be under the influence of alcohol where there is a refusal to submit to an alcohol breath test.) Moreover, appellant’s refusal to submit to the SFSTs is also suggestive of impairment and a court may consider “‘appellant’s refusal to take field sobriety tests when determining [the] appellant’s guilt.’” State v. Flynt, 11th Dist. 2022State v. Martin, 2018-Ohio-1705 , 111 N.E.3d 730, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.); Maumee v. Anistik, 69 Ohio St.3d 339 , 632 N.E.2d 497 (1994), syllabus (finding jury instruction appropriate to suggest that defendant believed themself to be under the influence of alcohol where there is a refusal to submit to an alcohol breath test.) Moreover, appellant’s refusal to submit to the SFSTs is also suggestive of impairment and a court may consider “‘appellant’s refusal to take field sobriety tests when determining [the] appellant’s guilt.’” State v. Flynt, 11th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Maine v. Moultongreen2 sentences2005See Nyflot, 474 U.S. at 1029 , 106 S.Ct. at 587 [ 88 L.Ed.2d at 569 ]. 2005See Nyflot, 474 U.S. at 1029 , 106 S.Ct. at 587 [ 88 L.Ed.2d at 569 ]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Maumee v. Anistik
green
2 sentences2022State v. Martin, 2018-Ohio-1705 , 111 N.E.3d 730, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.); Maumee v. Anistik, 69 Ohio St.3d 339 , 632 N.E.2d 497 (1994), syllabus (finding jury instruction appropriate to suggest that defendant believed themself to be under the influence of alcohol where there is a refusal to submit to an alcohol breath test.) Moreover, appellant’s refusal to submit to the SFSTs is also suggestive of impairment and a court may consider “‘appellant’s refusal to take field sobriety tests when determining [the] appellant’s guilt.’” State v. Flynt, 11th Dist. 2022State v. Martin, 2018-Ohio-1705 , 111 N.E.3d 730, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.); Maumee v. Anistik, 69 Ohio St.3d 339 , 632 N.E.2d 497 (1994), syllabus (finding jury instruction appropriate to suggest that defendant believed themself to be under the influence of alcohol where there is a refusal to submit to an alcohol breath test.) Moreover, appellant’s refusal to submit to the SFSTs is also suggestive of impairment and a court may consider “‘appellant’s refusal to take field sobriety tests when determining [the] appellant’s guilt.’” State v. Flynt, 11th Dist. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Dobbins v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2005If the General Assembly intended the result sought by appellant it would have so provided." 75 Ohio St.3d at 539 , 664 N.E.2d at 912 . {¶ 36} The Court in Dobbins, supra, specifically rejected appellant's Sixth Amendment challenge: "`Petitioner's argument that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches prior to taking an alcohol breath test was rejected by the Supreme Court on appeal in Nyflot. 2005If the General Assembly intended the result sought by appellant it would have so provided." 75 Ohio St.3d at 539 , 664 N.E.2d at 912 . {¶ 36} The Court in Dobbins, supra, specifically rejected appellant's Sixth Amendment challenge: "`Petitioner's argument that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches prior to taking an alcohol breath test was rejected by the Supreme Court on appeal in Nyflot. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
City of Defiance v. Kretz
green
2 sentences1993The trial court, relying on language in the majority opinion of Defiance v. Kretz (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 1 , 573 N.E.2d 32 , and the Medina County Court of Appeals’ opinion in State v. Dvorak (1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 44 , 582 N.E.2d 1027 , ruled that challenges based on noncompliance with Department of Health regulations for the alcohol breath test are pretrial issues to be litigated by means of a motion to suppress and that a failure to raise such an issue in that fashion waives any foundational requirement upon the state at trial. 1993The trial court, relying on language in the majority opinion of Defiance v. Kretz (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 1 , 573 N.E.2d 32 , and the Medina County Court of Appeals’ opinion in State v. Dvorak (1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 44 , 582 N.E.2d 1027 , ruled that challenges based on noncompliance with Department of Health regulations for the alcohol breath test are pretrial issues to be litigated by means of a motion to suppress and that a failure to raise such an issue in that fashion waives any foundational requirement upon the state at trial. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Dvorak
neutral
2 sentences1993The trial court, relying on language in the majority opinion of Defiance v. Kretz (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 1 , 573 N.E.2d 32 , and the Medina County Court of Appeals’ opinion in State v. Dvorak (1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 44 , 582 N.E.2d 1027 , ruled that challenges based on noncompliance with Department of Health regulations for the alcohol breath test are pretrial issues to be litigated by means of a motion to suppress and that a failure to raise such an issue in that fashion waives any foundational requirement upon the state at trial. 1993The trial court, relying on language in the majority opinion of Defiance v. Kretz (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 1 , 573 N.E.2d 32 , and the Medina County Court of Appeals’ opinion in State v. Dvorak (1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 44 , 582 N.E.2d 1027 , ruled that challenges based on noncompliance with Department of Health regulations for the alcohol breath test are pretrial issues to be litigated by means of a motion to suppress and that a failure to raise such an issue in that fashion waives any foundational requirement upon the state at trial. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.