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 2011–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Steffengreen2 sentences2022See, e.g., State v. Steffen, 31 Ohio St.3d 111, 115 (1987) ("a privilege once granted may be revoked. * * * * Under the circumstances of this case, even assuming lawful initial entry, the jury was justified in inferring from the evidence that appellant's privilege to remain in [the] home terminated the moment he commenced his assault"); State v. Cutts, 5th Dist. No. 2008CA00079, 2009-Ohio-3563 , ¶ 181 ("Where a defendant commits an offense against a person in the person's private dwelling, the defendant forfeits any privilege, becomes a trespasser, and can be culpable for aggravated burglary." 2020See, e.g., State v. Steffen, 31 Ohio St.3d 111, 115 , 509 N.E.2d 383 (1987). {¶23} In the case at bar, Hillary has not challenged her conviction for assault. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Wisecup, Unpublished Decision (10-25-2004)green1 sentence2012Clermont No. CA2004-02-014, 2004-Ohio-5652, ¶ 10-11 (“Where a defendant commits an offense against a person in the person’s private dwelling, the defendant forfeits any privilege, becomes a trespasser and can be culpable for burglary. * * * Assuming, arguendo, an initial lawful entry, appellant’s privilege to remain terminated upon the commencement of his conduct constituting gross sexual imposition.” (Emphasis sic.)); State v. Lattire, 12th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lattire, Unpublished Decision (10-25-2004)green1 sentence2012Butler No. CA2004-01-005, 2004-Ohio-5648, ¶ 29 (“Appellant maintains that [the victim] extended an invitation to ‘come down.’ However, when appellant attacked [the victim], the action committed withdrew any invitation to ‘come down’ that appellant may have received. * * * Any rational trier of fact can infer the privilege to remain on the premises was terminated when appellant threw a punch at [the victim]’s nose.”). –11– also his bedroom, at an early hour of the morning, some time before 7:00. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.