217 Ohio opinions name it 6 courts 1966–2026 42 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Simichgreen2 sentences2001“Regardless, a written waiver of counsel is not a substitute for compliance with the Criminal Rules which require an oral waiver in open court before a judge which is recorded.” (Emphasis sic.) Brewer, 17 Ohio App.3d at 217 , 17 OBR at 459, 479 N.E.2d at 312 citing Cuyahoga Falls v. Simich (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 10, 12 , 5 OBR 11, 13, 448 N.E.2d 839, 841-842 ; State v. Minor (1979), 64 Ohio App.2d 129, 131 , 18 O.O.3d 98, 99-100 , 411 N.E.2d 822, 824 . 2001“Regardless, a written waiver of counsel is not a substitute for compliance with the Criminal Rules which require an oral waiver in open court before a judge which is recorded.” (Emphasis sic.) Brewer, 17 Ohio App.3d at 217 , 17 OBR at 459, 479 N.E.2d at 312 citing Cuyahoga Falls v. Simich (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 10, 12 , 5 OBR 11, 13, 448 N.E.2d 839, 841-842 ; State v. Minor (1979), 64 Ohio App.2d 129, 131 , 18 O.O.3d 98, 99-100 , 411 N.E.2d 822, 824 . | 5 | 6 |
Mattox v. Dillard's, 90991 (12-11-2008)green2 sentences2025See, e.g., Mattox v. Dillard’s, Inc., 2008-Ohio-6488, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.) (“While a party’s request for an oral hearing shall be granted pursuant to R.C. 2711.03, an oral hearing is not mandatory absent a request.”); Snyder v. Old World Classics, 2023-Ohio-4019 , ¶ 6- 10 (9th Dist.) (holding that the trial court erred by not sua sponte holding an oral hearing on the motion to stay and compel arbitration). 2023Cuyahoga No. 90991, 2008-Ohio-6488, ¶ 15 (“While a party’s request for an oral hearing shall be granted pursuant to R.C. 2711.03, an oral hearing is not mandatory absent a request.”). | 4 | 4 |
Cross v. Carnesgreen2 sentences2024See Nemec at ¶ 19 , citing Marks at ¶ 33 ; Church v. Fleishour Homes, Inc., 172 Ohio App.3d 205 , 2007-Ohio-1806 , 874 N.E.2d 795, ¶ 29 (5th Dist.) (“While a party’s request for an oral hearing shall be granted pursuant to R.C. 2711.03, an oral hearing is not mandatory absent a request.”), citing Cross v. Carnes, 132 Ohio App.3d 157, 166 , 724 N.E.2d 828 (11th Dist.1998), and Chrysler Fin. 2024See Nemec at ¶ 19 , citing Marks at ¶ 33 ; Church v. Fleishour Homes, Inc., 172 Ohio App.3d 205 , 2007-Ohio-1806 , 874 N.E.2d 795, ¶ 29 (5th Dist.) (“While a party’s request for an oral hearing shall be granted pursuant to R.C. 2711.03, an oral hearing is not mandatory absent a request.”), citing Cross v. Carnes, 132 Ohio App.3d 157, 166 , 724 N.E.2d 828 (11th Dist.1998), and Chrysler Fin. | 3 | 5 |
Donaldson v. Toddgreen2 sentences2025“The key to this court’s analysis of whether a hearing should have been held ‘is that the trial court may deny an oral hearing only to those motions which on their face reveal the lack of a triable issue.’ ” Id. at ¶ 26, quoting Donaldson v. Todd, 2007-Ohio-6504, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.). {¶ 18} Here, the trial court denied appellant’s motion for sanctions without any hearing or explanation. 2019The key to this court's analysis of whether a hearing should have been held "is that the trial court may deny an oral hearing only to those motions which on their face reveal the lack of a triable issue." Donaldson v. Todd, 174 Ohio App.3d 117 , 2007-Ohio-6504, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.), citing Cortext Ltd. v. Pride Media Ltd., 10th Dist. | 3 | 3 |
Potter v. City of Troygreen2 sentences2001The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve and file opposing affidavits." Although this rule mentions a hearing in the context of summary judgment motions, various courts, including this one, have held that "Civ.R. 56(C) does not require an oral hearing on every motion for summary judgment." Smith v. Werner (March 6, 1986), Auglaize App. No. 2-84-17, unreported, 1986 WL 2982 (citing Gates Mills Investment Co. v. Pepper Pike (1978), 59 Ohio App.2d 155 ) ; see also Potter v. City of Troy (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 372 , 378 (citations omitted); Brown v. Akron Beacon Journal Publishing C 2000We have held that, "[t]he trial court is not required to hold an oral hearing on a summary judgment motion." Millcreek Plaza Co. v. Record Town, Inc., (Nov. 19, 1998) Mahoning App. No. 96 C.A. 153, unreported, 3, citing Potter v. Troy (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 372 . | 2 | 8 |
Liese v. Kent State Univ., Unpublished Decision (9-30-2004)green2 sentences2025See Barnes v. Andover Village Retirement Community, Ltd., 2007-Ohio-4112 (11th Dist.). {¶16} “While a party’s request for an oral hearing shall be granted pursuant to R.C. 2711.03, an oral hearing is not mandatory absent a request.” Liese v. Kent State University, 2004-Ohio-5322, ¶ 43 (11th Dist.). 2025This court has held that an “oral hearing is not mandatory absent a request” but “a party’s request for an oral hearing shall be granted pursuant to R.C. 2711.03.” Liese v. Kent State Univ., 2004-Ohio-5322, ¶ 43 (11th Dist.); Dilley at ¶ 16 . | 2 | 7 |
State v. Minorgreen2 sentences2001“Regardless, a written waiver of counsel is not a substitute for compliance with the Criminal Rules which require an oral waiver in open court before a judge which is recorded.” (Emphasis sic.) Brewer, 17 Ohio App.3d at 217 , 17 OBR at 459, 479 N.E.2d at 312 citing Cuyahoga Falls v. Simich (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 10, 12 , 5 OBR 11, 13, 448 N.E.2d 839, 841-842 ; State v. Minor (1979), 64 Ohio App.2d 129, 131 , 18 O.O.3d 98, 99-100 , 411 N.E.2d 822, 824 . 2001“Regardless, a written waiver of counsel is not a substitute for compliance with the Criminal Rules which require an oral waiver in open court before a judge which is recorded.” (Emphasis sic.) Brewer, 17 Ohio App.3d at 217 , 17 OBR at 459, 479 N.E.2d at 312 citing Cuyahoga Falls v. Simich (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 10, 12 , 5 OBR 11, 13, 448 N.E.2d 839, 841-842 ; State v. Minor (1979), 64 Ohio App.2d 129, 131 , 18 O.O.3d 98, 99-100 , 411 N.E.2d 822, 824 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Withrow, Unpublished Decision (7-13-2004)green2 sentences2025State v. Potts, 2020-Ohio-989, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.); State v. Talameh, 2012-Ohio-4205 , ¶ 41 (11th Dist.) (“the requirement of a hearing is mandatory and each application for expungement must be set for hearing”); State v. Withrow, 2004-Ohio-3699, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.) (“[n]umerous PAGE 3 OF 6 Case No. 2025-G-0002 appellate districts . . . have had the opportunity to address this issue and have found that an oral hearing is mandatory prior to the issuance of a decision on the application for sealing of record”); State v. Harris, 2004-Ohio-1788, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.). 2006See, e.g., State v. Withrow, Franklin App. No. 03AP-999, 2004-Ohio-3699 (requiring a hearing pursuant to identical language contained in R.C. 2953.32 [B] for the sealing of records subsequent to conviction); see, also, State v. Haney (Nov. 23, 1999), Franklin App. No. 99AP-159 (finding that the rationale for requiring a hearing "is obviously predicated upon the fact that, under normal circumstances, a trial court would be required to hear evidence prior to rendering its decision in order to make several determinations pursuant to R.C. 2953.52 [B][2][a] through [d]"). {¶ 6} Considering the fore | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Haaggreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Saltzergreen | 2 | 2 |
| State ex rel. Campbell v. Municipal Civil Service Commissiongreen | 2 | 2 |
Gates Mills Investment Co. v. Village of Pepper Pikegreen2 sentences2006Co. v. Pepper Pike (1979), 59 Ohio App.2d 155 . {¶ 14} Here, Brown failed to request an oral hearing on any of his pre-trial motions, including his motion for summary judgment. 2001The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve and file opposing affidavits." Although this rule mentions a hearing in the context of summary judgment motions, various courts, including this one, have held that "Civ.R. 56(C) does not require an oral hearing on every motion for summary judgment." Smith v. Werner (March 6, 1986), Auglaize App. No. 2-84-17, unreported, 1986 WL 2982 (citing Gates Mills Investment Co. v. Pepper Pike (1978), 59 Ohio App.2d 155 ) ; see also Potter v. City of Troy (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 372 , 378 (citations omitted); Brown v. Akron Beacon Journal Publishing C | 1 | 8 |
Church v. Fleishour Homes, Inc.green2 sentences2024See Nemec at ¶ 19 , citing Marks at ¶ 33 ; Church v. Fleishour Homes, Inc., 172 Ohio App.3d 205 , 2007-Ohio-1806 , 874 N.E.2d 795, ¶ 29 (5th Dist.) (“While a party’s request for an oral hearing shall be granted pursuant to R.C. 2711.03, an oral hearing is not mandatory absent a request.”), citing Cross v. Carnes, 132 Ohio App.3d 157, 166 , 724 N.E.2d 828 (11th Dist.1998), and Chrysler Fin. 2024See Nemec at ¶ 19 , citing Marks at ¶ 33 ; Church v. Fleishour Homes, Inc., 172 Ohio App.3d 205 , 2007-Ohio-1806 , 874 N.E.2d 795, ¶ 29 (5th Dist.) (“While a party’s request for an oral hearing shall be granted pursuant to R.C. 2711.03, an oral hearing is not mandatory absent a request.”), citing Cross v. Carnes, 132 Ohio App.3d 157, 166 , 724 N.E.2d 828 (11th Dist.1998), and Chrysler Fin. | 1 | 5 |
City of Garfield Heights v. Brewergreen2 sentences2016“A written waiver of counsel is not a substitute for compliance with the Criminal Rules which require an oral waiver in open court before a judge which is recorded.” Garfield Hts. v. Brewer, 17 Ohio App.3d 216, 217 , 479 N.E.2d 309 (8th Dist.1984). 2016“A written waiver of counsel is not a substitute for compliance with the Criminal Rules which require an oral waiver in open court before a judge which is recorded.” Garfield Hts. v. Brewer, 17 Ohio App.3d 216, 217 , 479 N.E.2d 309 (8th Dist.1984). | 1 | 5 |
Brown v. Akron Beacon Journal Publishing Co.green2 sentences2006Brown v. Akron Beacon Journal Publishing Co. (1991), 81 Ohio App.3d 135 . 2001The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve and file opposing affidavits." Although this rule mentions a hearing in the context of summary judgment motions, various courts, including this one, have held that "Civ.R. 56(C) does not require an oral hearing on every motion for summary judgment." Smith v. Werner (March 6, 1986), Auglaize App. No. 2-84-17, unreported, 1986 WL 2982 (citing Gates Mills Investment Co. v. Pepper Pike (1978), 59 Ohio App.2d 155 ) ; see also Potter v. City of Troy (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 372 , 378 (citations omitted); Brown v. Akron Beacon Journal Publishing C | 1 | 5 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2008State v. Cole (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 112 . {¶ 20} When alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant is required to demonstrate not only that counsel was so incompetent as to deny defendant his constitutional right, but also "that such errors resulted in prejudice before a hearing is scheduled." Calhoun , supra at 283 , citing State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 112 . {¶ 21} The defendant accomplishes this task by submitting evidentiary documents of sufficient quality to justify the trial court's decision, in the exercise of its discretion, to order an oral heari 2005Rather, when alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant is required to demonstrate not only that counsel was so incompetent as to deny defendant his constitutional right, but also "that such errors resulted in prejudice before a hearing is scheduled." Calhoun, supra at 283 , citing State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 112 . {¶ 31} The defendant accomplishes this task by submitting evidentiary documents of sufficient quality to justify the trial court's decision, in the exercise of its discretion, to order an oral hearing. | 1 | 4 |
Chrysler Fin. Servs. v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2025Servs. v. Henderson, 2011-Ohio-6813 (4th Dist.). {¶17} Here, no request for an oral hearing was made. 2024Servs. v. Henderson, 2011-Ohio-6813, ¶ 19 (4th Dist.) (holding that R.C. 2711.03 Case No. 24 MA 0028 – 12 – allows a court to hear the issue via a non-oral hearing); Mattox v. Dillard's, Inc., 2008- Ohio-6488, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.) (finding a hearing is not required absent a request); and Church v. Fleishour Homes, Inc., 2007-Ohio-1806 , ¶ 29 (5th Dist.) (“an oral hearing is not mandatory absent a request”). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2023“Unless the record demonstrates unequivocally that an oral waiver was given prior to trial, with a signed waiver presented to the court and included in the case record, the failure of the trial court to obtain the written waiver prior to the commencement of trial has been determined to be reversible error.” State v. Johnson, 81 Ohio App.3d 482, 486 , 611 N.E.2d 414 (10th Dist.1992), citing State v. Harris, 48 Ohio St.2d 351 , 359 N.E.2d 67 (1976). {¶16} In Harris, the Ohio Supreme Court held, “Where a defendant and his counsel waive the right to a jury trial and the cause is tried to completio 2023“Unless the record demonstrates unequivocally that an oral waiver was given prior to trial, with a signed waiver presented to the court and included in the case record, the failure of the trial court to obtain the written waiver prior to the commencement of trial has been determined to be reversible error.” State v. Johnson, 81 Ohio App.3d 482, 486 , 611 N.E.2d 414 (10th Dist.1992), citing State v. Harris, 48 Ohio St.2d 351 , 359 N.E.2d 67 (1976). {¶16} In Harris, the Ohio Supreme Court held, “Where a defendant and his counsel waive the right to a jury trial and the cause is tried to completio | 1 | 3 |
Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Board v. Central Cadillac Co.green2 sentences2020This court has previously stated, however, that “[t]he term ‘hearing’ has been liberally construed and may be limited to a review of the record without oral argument.” In re Swain, 68 Ohio App.3d 737, 741 (11th Dist.1991) (referring to Juv.R. 40), citing Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd. v. Central Cadillac Co., 14 Ohio St.3d 64, 67 (1984). 4 Further, various other Ohio appellate courts have concluded that “Civ.R. 12(D) does not mandate that the trial court hold an oral hearing.” See McKinley Machinery, Inc. v. Acme Corrugated Box Co., Inc., 9th Dist. 2008At the hearing, counsel may be heard on oral argument, briefs may be submitted, and evidence may be introduced if the court has granted a request for the presentation of additional evidence." {¶ 22} In Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd. v. Central Cadillac Co. (1984), 14 Ohio St. 3d 64 , 471 N.E.2d 488 , the Ohio Supreme Court addressed whether R.C. 119.12 requires the common pleas court to conduct an oral hearing on an appeal from an agency adjudication. | 1 | 3 |
Anania v. Daubenspeck Chiropracticgreen2 sentences2011A motion filed under this division shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating that a good defense to the claim exists, setting forth the grounds of the defense, and setting forth the compliance of the party * * * with any terms fixed by the court. * * * .” 9 {¶ 25} Regarding a hearing, “an oral hearing is not required for every summary judgment motion.” Anania v. Daubenspeck Chiropractic (1998), 129 Ohio App.3d 516, 522 . 2011However, if the trial court does not set an oral hearing date, the trial court must give the nonmoving party notice of the date on which the motion will be deemed submitted for decision.” Anania v. Daubenspeck Chiropractic (1998), 129 Ohio App.3d 516, 522 . | 1 | 3 |
Klesch v. Reidgreen2 sentences2000See Civ.R. 56; Loc.R. 11(1) of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County; and Klesch v. Reid (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 664 , 643 N.E.2d 571 . 2000See Civ.R. 56; Loc.R. 11(1) of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County; and Klesch v. Reid (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 664 , 643 N.E.2d 571 . | 1 | 3 |
Snyder v. Old World Classics, L.L.C.green2 sentences2025See, e.g., Mattox v. Dillard’s, Inc., 2008-Ohio-6488, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.) (“While a party’s request for an oral hearing shall be granted pursuant to R.C. 2711.03, an oral hearing is not mandatory absent a request.”); Snyder v. Old World Classics, 2023-Ohio-4019 , ¶ 6- 10 (9th Dist.) (holding that the trial court erred by not sua sponte holding an oral hearing on the motion to stay and compel arbitration). 2025The appellate court did not address the merits of the Snyders’ argument but instead held that the trial court had erred procedurally by failing to hold an oral hearing on the motion. 2023-Ohio-4019, ¶ 5, 10 (9th Dist.). | 1 | 2 |
Murphy v. City of Reynoldsburggreen2 sentences2025Davis v. Loopco Industries, Inc., 66 Ohio St.3d 64, 66 (1993), citing Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 358-59 (1992). {¶ 13} Appellant initially asserts the trial court erred by granting LVNV’s motion for summary judgment “with no hearing.” (Appellant’s Brief at 6.) However, “there is no requirement for an oral hearing on motions for summary judgment.” Huntington Natl. 2023Murphy, 65 Ohio St.3d at 360 , 604 N.E.2d 138 . {¶ 40} In Murphy, the trial court stated at an oral hearing that it had not reviewed the summary judgment motion or the parties’ briefs. | 1 | 2 |
| Strickland v. Washingtongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Haddixgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Motongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lee v. Bath Manor Ltd. Partnershipgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Parksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ameritech Publishing, Inc. v. Matejkovic, Ca2007-08-183 (5-5-2008)green | 1 | 1 |
| Duff v. Christophergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Torresgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Phillipsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas v. Murrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Estate of O'Toolegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Huntington National Bank v. Rossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Harris, Unpublished Decision (4-8-2004)green | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Loopco Industries, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pottsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Benson v. Spitzer Mgt., Inc., Unpublished Decision (9-9-2004)green | 1 | 1 |
| Marino v. Oriana House, Inc., 23389 (4-18-2007)green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adomeit v. Baltimore
green
2 sentences2003Coulson v. Coulson (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 12 , 16 , citing Adomeit v. Baltimore (1974), 39 Ohio App.2d 97 , 105 . {¶ 12} A review of the record demonstrates that at the oral hearing on Connors' Civ.R. 60(B) motion, he testified that service was unsuccessful regarding notice of the damages hearing. 2001We find nothing in the magistrate's entry that rises to appellant's characterization of a hard-and-fast rule requiring "the submission of evidence along with [appellant's] motion for relief from judgment in order to grant an oral hearing thereon." In fact, the magistrate relied on, and extensively quoted, Adomeit v. Baltimore (1974), 39 Ohio App.2d 97 , 316 N.E.2d 469 , which specifically states, inter alia , that evidence need not be submitted in order to obtain a hearing — although the appellate court suggested that it would be good practice for the movant to submit such evidence. | 4 | 2001–2022 |
Hooten v. Safe Auto Insurance
green
2 sentences2009Co. , 100 Ohio St.3d 8 , 2003-Ohio-4829 , ¶ 14 . *Page 4 As in the prior appeal, "Lasson has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on Coleman's motion for summary judgment without holding an oral hearing." Id., ¶ 39. {¶ 12} We are not sure what Lasson means when he states that the trial court did not allow him to present his counterclaim. 2006Co., 100 Ohio St.3d 8 , 2003-Ohio-4829 , the Supreme Court of Ohio acknowledged that "Ohio's appellate courts uniformly agree that a trial court is not required to schedule an oral hearing on every motion for summary judgment." (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 14. | 4 | 2003–2009 |
McGlone v. Grimshaw
green
2 sentences2008The rule also gives the trial court the authority to hear motions without an oral hearing." Hillabrand v. Drypers Corp. 87 Ohio St.3d 517 , 519 , 2000-Ohio-468 , citing McGlone v. Grimshaw (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 279 , 283-284 . 2002Id . at 519; McGlone , supra, 86 Ohio App.3d at 283 -284 . | 4 | 2000–2008 |
State v. Berry
green
2 sentences2007See Saltzer, supra; State v. Perkins , Cuyahoga App. No. 79823, 2001 Ohio 4169 ; State v. Mallardi (Apr. 26, 2000), Summit App. No. 19842, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1791 ; State v. Hall (Mar. 20, 2000), Mahoning App. No. 99 CA 190, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1227 ; State v. Berry (1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 250 , 733 N.E.2d 651 (Second Appellate District); State v. Hagopian (Sept. 21, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-1572, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 4345 ; State v. Bauer (Mar. 29, 1996), Montgomery App. No. 15316 (Second Appellate District); State v. Starkey (Mar. 1, 1991), Trumbull App. No. 90-T-4463, 1991 Ohio App. 2007See Saltzer, supra; State v. Perkins , Cuyahoga App. No. 79823, 2001 Ohio 4169 ; State v. Mallardi (Apr. 26, 2000), Summit App. No. 19842, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1791 ; State v. Hall (Mar. 20, 2000), Mahoning App. No. 99 CA 190, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1227 ; State v. Berry (1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 250 , 733 N.E.2d 651 (Second Appellate District); State v. Hagopian (Sept. 21, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-1572, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 4345 ; State v. Bauer (Mar. 29, 1996), Montgomery App. No. 15316 (Second Appellate District); State v. Starkey (Mar. 1, 1991), Trumbull App. No. 90-T-4463, 1991 Ohio App. | 4 | 2004–2007 |
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences2015However, an oral waiver is sufficient if the court makes “a sufficient 4. inquiry to determine whether the defendant fully understood and intelligently relinquished his or her right to counsel.” State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2004- Ohio-5471, 816 N.E.2d 227 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 12} With respect to the waiving of counsel when there is no written waiver, this court held in State v. Williams, 6th Dist. 2015However, an oral waiver is sufficient if the court makes “a sufficient 4. inquiry to determine whether the defendant fully understood and intelligently relinquished his or her right to counsel.” State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2004- Ohio-5471, 816 N.E.2d 227 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 12} With respect to the waiving of counsel when there is no written waiver, this court held in State v. Williams, 6th Dist. | 3 | 2011–2022 |
In Re Jones, Unpublished Decision (6-29-2006)
neutral
2 sentences2007No. 06 CA 9, 2006-Ohio-3363 . {¶ 7} Appellant through her counsel filed a motion in the trial court for an oral hearing on July 18, 2006. 2007No. 06 CA 9, 2006-Ohio-3363 . {¶ 7} Mother through her counsel filed a motion in the trial court for an oral hearing on July 18, 2006. | 3 | 2007–2007 |
Snyder v. Old World Classics, L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2025[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 179 Ohio St.3d 24 .] SNYDER ET AL., APPELLEES, v. OLD WORLD CLASSICS, L.L.C., APPELLANT. [Cite as Snyder v. Old World Classics, L.L.C., 2025-Ohio-1875 .] Civil law—Party-presentation principle—Because none of the parties requested an oral hearing before trial court on motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration and on appeal did not assign error to trial court’s failure to hold an oral hearing on the motion, court of appeals violated party-presentation principle by reversing trial court’s order compelling arbitration on grounds 2025[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 179 Ohio St.3d 24 .] SNYDER ET AL., APPELLEES, v. OLD WORLD CLASSICS, L.L.C., APPELLANT. [Cite as Snyder v. Old World Classics, L.L.C., 2025-Ohio-1875 .] Civil law—Party-presentation principle—Because none of the parties requested an oral hearing before trial court on motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration and on appeal did not assign error to trial court’s failure to hold an oral hearing on the motion, court of appeals violated party-presentation principle by reversing trial court’s order compelling arbitration on grounds | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences2023“Unless the record demonstrates unequivocally that an oral waiver was given prior to trial, with a signed waiver presented to the court and included in the case record, the failure of the trial court to obtain the written waiver prior to the commencement of trial has been determined to be reversible error.” State v. Johnson, 81 Ohio App.3d 482, 486 , 611 N.E.2d 414 (10th Dist.1992), citing State v. Harris, 48 Ohio St.2d 351 , 359 N.E.2d 67 (1976). {¶16} In Harris, the Ohio Supreme Court held, “Where a defendant and his counsel waive the right to a jury trial and the cause is tried to completio 2023“Unless the record demonstrates unequivocally that an oral waiver was given prior to trial, with a signed waiver presented to the court and included in the case record, the failure of the trial court to obtain the written waiver prior to the commencement of trial has been determined to be reversible error.” State v. Johnson, 81 Ohio App.3d 482, 486 , 611 N.E.2d 414 (10th Dist.1992), citing State v. Harris, 48 Ohio St.2d 351 , 359 N.E.2d 67 (1976). {¶16} In Harris, the Ohio Supreme Court held, “Where a defendant and his counsel waive the right to a jury trial and the cause is tried to completio | 2 | 2008–2023 |
State v. Butcher
green
2 sentences2003The prosecutor presented no documentary or testimonial evidence regarding any other cases. {¶ 32} In State v. Butcher (1986), 27 Ohio St.3d 28, 30 , 27 OBR 445, 500 N.E.2d 1368 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that it is the state’s responsibility to document its position at the oral hearing on a motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial by presenting records demonstrating the existence of other pending charges. 2003The prosecutor presented no documentary or testimonial evidence regarding any other cases. {¶ 32} In State v. Butcher (1986), 27 Ohio St.3d 28, 30 , 27 OBR 445, 500 N.E.2d 1368 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that it is the state’s responsibility to document its position at the oral hearing on a motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial by presenting records demonstrating the existence of other pending charges. | 2 | 2003–2023 |
| Coulson v. Coulson green | 2 | 2003–2022 |
West v. Household Life Insurance
green
2 sentences2007Co., 170 Ohio App.3d 463 , 2007-Ohio-845 , 867 N.E.2d 868, ¶ 18 ; T & R Ents., Inc. v. Continental Grain Co. (C.A.5 1980), 613 F.2d 1272, 1276-1277 . *216 {¶ 29} While a party’s request for an oral hearing -will be granted pursuant to R.C. 2711.03, an oral hearing is not mandatory absent a request. 2007Co., 170 Ohio App.3d 463 , 2007-Ohio-845 , 867 N.E.2d 868, ¶ 18 ; T & R Ents., Inc. v. Continental Grain Co. (C.A.5 1980), 613 F.2d 1272, 1276-1277 . *216 {¶ 29} While a party’s request for an oral hearing -will be granted pursuant to R.C. 2711.03, an oral hearing is not mandatory absent a request. | 2 | 2007–2022 |
| State v. Owens green | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| Barstow v. Waller, Unpublished Decision (10-26-2004) green | 2 | 2007–2016 |
| Maestle v. Best Buy Co. green | 2 | 2004–2011 |
| State v. Cole green | 2 | 2005–2008 |
| Ford Motor Credit v. Foster, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2005) green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Tinker, Unpublished Decision (5-10-2005) neutral | 2 | 2005–2006 |
| Matson v. Marks green | 2 | 2001–2005 |
| State Ex Rel. Jones v. Farrar green | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| Sanitary Commercial Services, Inc. v. Shank green | 2 | 2002–2004 |
| Ojalvo v. Board of Trustees green | 2 | 1999–1999 |
| Giachetti v. Holmes green | 2 | 1996–1999 |
| Shaver v. Standard Oil Co. green | 2 | 1999–1999 |
| Greenlaw v. United States green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Fanning green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Straley (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Dilley v. Davis Auto Group, Inc. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Bostick neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Frantz v. Van Gunten green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Wilcox green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Nicholson green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Griffin green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In the Matter of McLoughlin v. McLoughlin, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2006) green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Tanner green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.