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 1971–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2020Licking No. 2017CA00055, 2020-Ohio-1353, ¶ 13-14 (Finding, on remand, that “trial counsel did not 4. violate an essential duty to [the defendant] by not filing a motion to waive costs at the sentencing hearing.”). {¶ 9} Given that Holt’s claim of deficient performance is based entirely upon counsel’s failure to seek a waiver at sentencing, we cannot find that Holt has overcome the presumption that trial counsel’s inaction was anything other than trial strategy. | 1 | 1 |
State v. A.P.green2 sentences2020See id. at ¶ 10; State v. A.P., 2018-Ohio-3423 , 117 N.E.3d 840, ¶ 60 (12th Dist.). 10. {¶ 20} We conclude that under either standard, Holt’s claim fails. 2020See id. at ¶ 10; State v. A.P., 2018-Ohio-3423 , 117 N.E.3d 840, ¶ 60 (12th Dist.). 10. {¶ 20} We conclude that under either standard, Holt’s claim fails. | 1 | 1 |
Keyerleber v. Euclid Congregation of Jehovah's Witnessesgreen2 sentences2007See, also, Areawide Home Buyers, Inc. v. Manser , Mahoning App. No. 04 MA 154, 2005-Ohio-1340 , at ¶ 24 (stating that "[rescission is an equitable remedy that invalidates an agreement"). {¶ 48} "Generally, without fraud, duress, undue influence, or mistake, one party to a contract cannot rescind or cancel it without the consent of the other party." Owens v. Heilmann (Feb. 12, 1996), Butler App. No. CA95-04-081, citing 18 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1980) 219, Contracts, Section 296. *Page 17 {¶ 49} In Keyerleber v. Euclid Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (1957), 103 Ohio App. 423 , the Eighth Di 2007See, also, Areawide Home Buyers, Inc. v. Manser , Mahoning App. No. 04 MA 154, 2005-Ohio-1340 , at ¶ 24 (stating that "[rescission is an equitable remedy that invalidates an agreement"). {¶ 48} "Generally, without fraud, duress, undue influence, or mistake, one party to a contract cannot rescind or cancel it without the consent of the other party." Owens v. Heilmann (Feb. 12, 1996), Butler App. No. CA95-04-081, citing 18 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1980) 219, Contracts, Section 296. *Page 17 {¶ 49} In Keyerleber v. Euclid Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (1957), 103 Ohio App. 423 , the Eighth Di | 1 | 1 |
Areawide Home Buyers v. Manser, Unpublished Decision (3-16-2005)green1 sentence2007See, also, Areawide Home Buyers, Inc. v. Manser , Mahoning App. No. 04 MA 154, 2005-Ohio-1340 , at ¶ 24 (stating that "[rescission is an equitable remedy that invalidates an agreement"). {¶ 48} "Generally, without fraud, duress, undue influence, or mistake, one party to a contract cannot rescind or cancel it without the consent of the other party." Owens v. Heilmann (Feb. 12, 1996), Butler App. No. CA95-04-081, citing 18 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1980) 219, Contracts, Section 296. *Page 17 {¶ 49} In Keyerleber v. Euclid Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (1957), 103 Ohio App. 423 , the Eighth Di | 1 | 1 |
Brett v. Cooneygreen2 sentences2007See, also, Areawide Home Buyers, Inc. v. Manser , Mahoning App. No. 04 MA 154, 2005-Ohio-1340 , at ¶ 24 (stating that "[rescission is an equitable remedy that invalidates an agreement"). {¶ 48} "Generally, without fraud, duress, undue influence, or mistake, one party to a contract cannot rescind or cancel it without the consent of the other party." Owens v. Heilmann (Feb. 12, 1996), Butler App. No. CA95-04-081, citing 18 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1980) 219, Contracts, Section 296. *Page 17 {¶ 49} In Keyerleber v. Euclid Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (1957), 103 Ohio App. 423 , the Eighth Di 2007See, also, Areawide Home Buyers, Inc. v. Manser , Mahoning App. No. 04 MA 154, 2005-Ohio-1340 , at ¶ 24 (stating that "[rescission is an equitable remedy that invalidates an agreement"). {¶ 48} "Generally, without fraud, duress, undue influence, or mistake, one party to a contract cannot rescind or cancel it without the consent of the other party." Owens v. Heilmann (Feb. 12, 1996), Butler App. No. CA95-04-081, citing 18 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1980) 219, Contracts, Section 296. *Page 17 {¶ 49} In Keyerleber v. Euclid Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (1957), 103 Ohio App. 423 , the Eighth Di | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Franks v. Delaware
green
2 sentences2024Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). {¶ 24} In applying Holt to this appeal, we find that the record clearly shows appellant’s failure to satisfy either prong of the Holt test. 2024Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). {¶ 24} In applying Holt to this appeal, we find that the record clearly shows appellant’s failure to satisfy either prong of the Holt test. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2020In his second assignment of error, Holt argues that this was error. {¶ 31} The Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Williams, 4 Ohio St.3d 74 , 446 N.E.2d 779 (1983), syllabus, established the standard for determining when the identity of a confidential informant must be revealed to the defense: “The identity of an informant must be revealed to a criminal defendant when the testimony of the informant is vital to establishing an element of the crime or would be helpful or beneficial to the accused in preparing or making a defense to criminal charges.” This standard involves the balancing of competing 2020In his second assignment of error, Holt argues that this was error. {¶ 31} The Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Williams, 4 Ohio St.3d 74 , 446 N.E.2d 779 (1983), syllabus, established the standard for determining when the identity of a confidential informant must be revealed to the defense: “The identity of an informant must be revealed to a criminal defendant when the testimony of the informant is vital to establishing an element of the crime or would be helpful or beneficial to the accused in preparing or making a defense to criminal charges.” This standard involves the balancing of competing | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. George
green
1 sentence2020Great deference must be accorded to the magistrate’s determination of probable cause, “‘and doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be resolved in favor of upholding the warrant.’” Id. {¶ 23} Here, the trial court found that based upon the information contained in the search warrant affidavit, “the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed to issue the search warrant,” and it denied Holt’s motion to suppress. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2020State v. Jones, 143 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2015-Ohio-483 , 37 N.E.3d 123, ¶ 11 . 2020State v. Jones, 143 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2015-Ohio-483 , 37 N.E.3d 123, ¶ 11 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ohio v. Holt
green
2 sentences1971This court faced that question in State v. Holt (1967), 9 Ohio St. 2d 147 , holding that: “Under Section 2945.65, Revised Code, it is not essential that a motion to extend the period for filing a bill of exceptions be filed in the trial court within the time fixed for the filing of such bill; and, after expiration of an original extension of such period, the trial court may, in the exercise of a sound discretion and for good cause shown, grant a further extension thereof.” Neither in argument nor in brief does the appellee raise an issue concerning the applicability of the Holt rule to the fac 1971This court faced that question in State v. Holt (1967), 9 Ohio St. 2d 147 , holding that: “Under Section 2945.65, Revised Code, it is not essential that a motion to extend the period for filing a bill of exceptions be filed in the trial court within the time fixed for the filing of such bill; and, after expiration of an original extension of such period, the trial court may, in the exercise of a sound discretion and for good cause shown, grant a further extension thereof.” Neither in argument nor in brief does the appellee raise an issue concerning the applicability of the Holt rule to the fac | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.