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 2014–2024 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. Dodsongreen2 sentences2024The Tenth District held that “[a] trial judge’s misreading of a jury verdict does not constitute amending a jury verdict, so no error occurred in that regard” and proceeded to overrule Dodson’s motion for delayed reconsideration.” State v. Dodson, 1993 WL 367178 (10th Dist. Sept. 7, 1993); see also State v. Dodson, 2023-Ohio-701, ¶ 3 (10th Dist.). {¶20} The fact that a petitioner has already unsuccessfully invoked some of their alternate remedies does not entitle them to the requested extraordinary relief. 2023See State v. Dodson, 10th Dist. No. 22AP-388, 2023-Ohio-701 . | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Willys-Overland Co. v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2023Willys-Overland Co. v. Clark, 112 Ohio St. 263, 268 (1925). {¶ 6} Accordingly, Dodson’s motion for leave to file a delayed appeal is denied. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fergusongreen2 sentences2014Crim.R. 52 states that "[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded." Regarding the appropriateness of finding harmless error, the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated: "[T]he cases where imposition of harmless error is appropriate must involve either overwhelming evidence of guilt or some other indicia that the error did not contribute to the conviction." State v. Ferguson, 5 Ohio St.3d 160, 166, fn. 5 (1983). 2014Crim.R. 52 states that "[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded." Regarding the appropriateness of finding harmless error, the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated: "[T]he cases where imposition of harmless error is appropriate must involve either overwhelming evidence of guilt or some other indicia that the error did not contribute to the conviction." State v. Ferguson, 5 Ohio St.3d 160, 166, fn. 5 (1983). | 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. Dodson, Unpublished Decision (2-10-2004)
green
1 sentence2023See State v. Dodson, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-141, 2002- Ohio-4771 (affirming trial court judgment finding Dodson to be a sexual predator under R.C. 2950.09); State v. Dodson, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-306, 2004-Ohio-581 (affirming trial court judgment denying Dodson's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment pertaining to sexual predator designation); State v. Dodson, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-801 (May 7, 2013) (memorandum decision) (affirming trial court judgment denying Dodson's motion for execution of a death warrant). {¶ 5} Most recently, we considered Dodson's motion for delayed appeal of an August 2 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.