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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2026 4 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. Marrgreen2 sentences2026Specifically, he contends that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of the five-year delay between his indictment in the instant case and the service of that indictment. {¶8} “[S]peedy trial issues present mixed questions of law and fact.” State v. Marr, 2018-Ohio-5061, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.). “[W]e apply a de novo standard of review to the legal issues but give deference to any factual findings made by the trial court.” Id. {¶9} “‘An accused is guaranteed the constitutional right to a speedy trial pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Oh 2026Specifically, he contends that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of the five-year delay between his indictment in the instant case and the service of that indictment. {¶8} “[S]peedy trial issues present mixed questions of law and fact.” State v. Marr, 2018-Ohio-5061, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.). “[W]e apply a de novo standard of review to the legal issues but give deference to any factual findings made by the trial court.” Id. {¶9} “‘An accused is guaranteed the constitutional right to a speedy trial pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Oh | 1 | 1 |
State v. Irishgreen1 sentence2026Specifically, he contends that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of the five-year delay between his indictment in the instant case and the service of that indictment. {¶8} “[S]peedy trial issues present mixed questions of law and fact.” State v. Marr, 2018-Ohio-5061, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.). “[W]e apply a de novo standard of review to the legal issues but give deference to any factual findings made by the trial court.” Id. {¶9} “‘An accused is guaranteed the constitutional right to a speedy trial pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Oh | 1 | 1 |
State v. Watsongreen1 sentence2026“Generally, when the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss based on speedy trial violations, courts will weigh the third Barker factor in the defendant’s favor.” Watson, 2013-Ohio-5603, at ¶ 29 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dahmsgreen1 sentence2026Specifically, he contends that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of the five-year delay between his indictment in the instant case and the service of that indictment. {¶8} “[S]peedy trial issues present mixed questions of law and fact.” State v. Marr, 2018-Ohio-5061, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.). “[W]e apply a de novo standard of review to the legal issues but give deference to any factual findings made by the trial court.” Id. {¶9} “‘An accused is guaranteed the constitutional right to a speedy trial pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Oh | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2025R.C. 2505.02(B)(1), (2), (4). {¶7} The common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens “allows a court having proper jurisdiction to dismiss an action when to do so would further the ends of justice and promote the convenience of the parties, as an inherent power of the trial court, resting within its sound discretion.” Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 35 Ohio St.3d 123, 125 (1988). “[T]he standard of review for a trial court’s dismissal of a case based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens is abuse of discretion—but only if that dismissal is a final order subject to review.” Crown 2025Importantly, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “a dismissal without prejudice based upon forum non conveniens is not a final, -5- appealable order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B) and is therefore not subject to appellate review.” Id. | 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. Harding
green
1 sentence2024As noted above, the trial court resolved the case based on claim preclusion and did not address issue preclusion. {¶ 35} This court explained claim preclusion in State v. Harding, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-362, 2014-Ohio-1187 : “ ‘Claim preclusion prevents subsequent actions, by the same parties or their privies, based upon any claim arising out of the transaction that was the subject matter of a previous action.’ ” [State ex rel.] Nickoli [v. Erie Metroparks], 124 Ohio St.3d 449 , 2010-Ohio-606, at ¶ 21 , quoting Ft. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State ex rel. Nickoli v. Erie MetroParks
green
2 sentences2024As noted above, the trial court resolved the case based on claim preclusion and did not address issue preclusion. {¶ 35} This court explained claim preclusion in State v. Harding, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-362, 2014-Ohio-1187 : “ ‘Claim preclusion prevents subsequent actions, by the same parties or their privies, based upon any claim arising out of the transaction that was the subject matter of a previous action.’ ” [State ex rel.] Nickoli [v. Erie Metroparks], 124 Ohio St.3d 449 , 2010-Ohio-606, at ¶ 21 , quoting Ft. 2024As noted above, the trial court resolved the case based on claim preclusion and did not address issue preclusion. {¶ 35} This court explained claim preclusion in State v. Harding, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-362, 2014-Ohio-1187 : “ ‘Claim preclusion prevents subsequent actions, by the same parties or their privies, based upon any claim arising out of the transaction that was the subject matter of a previous action.’ ” [State ex rel.] Nickoli [v. Erie Metroparks], 124 Ohio St.3d 449 , 2010-Ohio-606, at ¶ 21 , quoting Ft. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Benton v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2017Johnson correctly notes that jeopardy attached upon the swearing in of the jury, and argues because granting a mistrial was not a manifest necessity, double jeopardy attached and precludes a second attempt to try the case against him. {¶13} “The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures that a state may not put a defendant in jeopardy twice for the same offense.” Gunnell at ¶ 25, citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). 2017Johnson correctly notes that jeopardy attached upon the swearing in of the jury, and argues because granting a mistrial was not a manifest necessity, double jeopardy attached and precludes a second attempt to try the case against him. {¶13} “The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures that a state may not put a defendant in jeopardy twice for the same offense.” Gunnell at ¶ 25, citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2008Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 687 (1984). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.