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 2004–2026 2 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. Smithgreen1 sentence2026According to Moreland, the trial court’s “lip service” to him at the final pretrial conference “could not amount to a proper inquiry,” citing State v. Smith, 2012-Ohio-5020, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.) (“In [State v. Johnson, 2010-Ohio-315, ¶ 3 (3d Dist.)] a review of several seminal United States Supreme Court cases clearly demonstrated that where a trial court knows or reasonably should know of an attorney’s possible conflict of interest in the representation of a person charged with a crime, the trial court has an affirmative duty to inquire whether a conflict actually exits.”). 4 {¶ 9} A trial court’s | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2026According to Moreland, the trial court’s “lip service” to him at the final pretrial conference “could not amount to a proper inquiry,” citing State v. Smith, 2012-Ohio-5020, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.) (“In [State v. Johnson, 2010-Ohio-315, ¶ 3 (3d Dist.)] a review of several seminal United States Supreme Court cases clearly demonstrated that where a trial court knows or reasonably should know of an attorney’s possible conflict of interest in the representation of a person charged with a crime, the trial court has an affirmative duty to inquire whether a conflict actually exits.”). 4 {¶ 9} A trial court’s | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2016See McKelton at ¶ 286, quoting Brown at 316, fn. 7 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hackney
green
1 sentence2026He directs our attention to State v. Hackney, 2021-Ohio-2064 (6th Dist.), for the proposition that the potential for conflict arises especially in the context of cross-examination. {¶ 7} The State responds that any conflict related to the prior representation of Fannon was never raised before the trial court, and “based on the totality of the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the manner in which it handled Moreland’s motion to substitute counsel.” It argues that there is no reason to believe that the past representation of Fannon “impacted [defense counsel’s] cross | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Ford (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2024State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2019-Ohio-4539 , 140 N.E.3d 616 , ¶ 288-298. “ ‘The requirement of a unanimous decision * * * does not come without a price. 2024State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2019-Ohio-4539 , 140 N.E.3d 616 , ¶ 288-298. “ ‘The requirement of a unanimous decision * * * does not come without a price. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Smith v. Phillips
green
1 sentence2016Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2008-Ohio-6266 , at ¶ 140, quoting Smith, 455 U.S. at 219 . {¶28} The trial court properly sustained Moreland’s objection to the prosecutor’s argument because there was no evidence that the victim “was still dating” his girlfriend at the time of the robbery. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Diar
green
1 sentence2016Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2008-Ohio-6266 , at ¶ 140, quoting Smith, 455 U.S. at 219 . {¶28} The trial court properly sustained Moreland’s objection to the prosecutor’s argument because there was no evidence that the victim “was still dating” his girlfriend at the time of the robbery. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Eiland v. Coldwell Banker Hunter Realty
green
1 sentence2004Eiland v. Coldwell Banker Hunter Realty (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 446 , 457 . {¶ 59} Moreland's claim regarding the basement fails because Ksiazek adequately established the defense of caveat emptor. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Mitchell v. Ross
green
1 sentence2004Documents that have not been sworn, certified, or authenticated by way of affidavit "have no evidentiary value." Mitchell v. Ross (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 75 . {¶ 26} Here, the letter attached to Moreland's brief in opposition is not proper Civ.R. 56(C) evidence because it does not fall into one of the categories of evidentiary materials listed in that section nor was it incorporated and referenced in a properly framed affidavit pursuant to Civ.R. 56(E). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Calhoun
green
1 sentence2004Counsel couched the request as follows. {¶ 27} "If this Court's final decision were to depend on Petitioner's testimony versus relying solely on the evidence proving that neither the trial court nor his trial counsel adequately informed him of the particulars of a jury waiver, then counsel respectfully requests that this Court hold its decision in abeyance and issue an order requiring Petitioner to be evaluated for competence so that Petitioner's testimony can be assigned any constitutionally weight it may or, more likely, may not deserve." {¶ 28} The trial court denied the request, stating th | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.