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 1 courts 2007–2019 0 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. Calhoungreen1 sentence2019State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 281 (1999); State v. Bell, 12th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2016Lawrence entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. {¶3} On August 27, 2015, Lawrence filed a motion to suppress all statements Lawrence made to the police and children service representatives arguing that he was not given warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), before being interviewed by the police. -2- Case No. 12-15-11 {¶4} A hearing on Lawrence’s motion to suppress was held on September 25, 2015, where the following testimony was presented. {¶5} Chief Dennis Cupp of the Leipsic Police Department was the first witness to testify. 2016Lawrence entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. {¶3} On August 27, 2015, Lawrence filed a motion to suppress all statements Lawrence made to the police and children service representatives arguing that he was not given warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), before being interviewed by the police. -2- Case No. 12-15-11 {¶4} A hearing on Lawrence’s motion to suppress was held on September 25, 2015, where the following testimony was presented. {¶5} Chief Dennis Cupp of the Leipsic Police Department was the first witness to testify. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Thompkins
red
2 sentences2014State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). 2014State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges
green
2 sentences2012Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 , 378 N.E.2d 162 (1978), for that proposition. {¶ 3} On the authority of State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2011-Ohio-5028 , 959 N.E.2d 516 , ¶ 37, we conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider Lawrence’s motion. {¶ 4} Since no basis is presented in this record for the trial court’s denial of Lawrence’s motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial, other than the State’s erroneous argument that the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the motion, the trial court’s order from which this appea 2012Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 , 378 N.E.2d 162 (1978), for that proposition. {¶ 3} On the authority of State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2011-Ohio-5028 , 959 N.E.2d 516 , ¶ 37, we conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider Lawrence’s motion. {¶ 4} Since no basis is presented in this record for the trial court’s denial of Lawrence’s motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial, other than the State’s erroneous argument that the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the motion, the trial court’s order from which this appea | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2012Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 , 378 N.E.2d 162 (1978), for that proposition. {¶ 3} On the authority of State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2011-Ohio-5028 , 959 N.E.2d 516 , ¶ 37, we conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider Lawrence’s motion. {¶ 4} Since no basis is presented in this record for the trial court’s denial of Lawrence’s motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial, other than the State’s erroneous argument that the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the motion, the trial court’s order from which this appea 2012Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 , 378 N.E.2d 162 (1978), for that proposition. {¶ 3} On the authority of State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2011-Ohio-5028 , 959 N.E.2d 516 , ¶ 37, we conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider Lawrence’s motion. {¶ 4} Since no basis is presented in this record for the trial court’s denial of Lawrence’s motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial, other than the State’s erroneous argument that the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the motion, the trial court’s order from which this appea | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland
green
1 sentence2007No. 2002-G-2418, 2003-Ohio-921 , at ¶ 18, citing Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.