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 1992–2022 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. Landrum
green
2 sentences1994State v. Landrum (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 113 , 559 N.E.2d 710, 719 . 1994State v. Landrum (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 113 , 559 N.E.2d 710, 719 . | 2 | 1994–1994 |
White v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1992The White court began its analysis by limiting the application of the unavailability requirement of Roberts , stating that “Roberts stands for the proposition that unavailability analysis is a necessary part of the Confrontation Clause inquiry only when the challenged out-of-court statements were made in the course of a prior judicial proceeding." (Emphasis added.) White, supra, 502 U.S. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 741 , 116 L.Ed.2d at 858 . 1992The White court began its analysis by limiting the application of the unavailability requirement of Roberts , stating that “Roberts stands for the proposition that unavailability analysis is a necessary part of the Confrontation Clause inquiry only when the challenged out-of-court statements were made in the course of a prior judicial proceeding." (Emphasis added.) White, supra, 502 U.S. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 741 , 116 L.Ed.2d at 858 . | 2 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Iseli
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 665 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.