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 1975–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bradley
green
2 sentences2022Armstead at ¶ 48; State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 140 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989) (refusing to review for plain error after finding that the defendant waived any error in the admission of an investigation report when his trial counsel, after ample time to reflect, consciously refused to object to the report’s admission into evidence). 2022Armstead at ¶ 48; State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 140 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989) (refusing to review for plain error after finding that the defendant waived any error in the admission of an investigation report when his trial counsel, after ample time to reflect, consciously refused to object to the report’s admission into evidence). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Martin, Unpublished Decision (6-1-2006)
green
1 sentence2006Martin, 2006-Ohio-2749 , 2006 WL 1495079 , at ¶ 10 (concluding that the defendant waived any alleged error relating to the trial court’s failure to discharge the jury or to grant a continuance when the defendant objected but did not request a discharge of the jury or a continuance but, instead, chose to proceed with the trial); see, also, Gondek, Medina App. No. 2928-M, 2000 WL 109044 (stating that the defendant waived objection to an amendment of the indictment to correct the culpable mental state from “knowingly” to “recklessly” when defendant objected to the amendment but did not move for a | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Greer
green
1 sentence2003State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Cantu
neutral
1 sentence1979Appellee relies upon State v. Cantu (1971), 27 Ohio App. 2d 55 , and State v. Young (1966), 7 Ohio App. 2d 194 , for the proposition that the defendant waived any error committed in the overruling of the motion for judgment of acquittal by failing to renew her motion at the close of all the evidence. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Young
green
1 sentence1979Appellee relies upon State v. Cantu (1971), 27 Ohio App. 2d 55 , and State v. Young (1966), 7 Ohio App. 2d 194 , for the proposition that the defendant waived any error committed in the overruling of the motion for judgment of acquittal by failing to renew her motion at the close of all the evidence. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Lancaster
green
1 sentence1975State v. Lancaster (1971), 25 Ohio St. 2d 83 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.