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 1984–2021 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. Cookgreen1 sentence2021State v. Lipkins, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-616, 2017-Ohio-4085, ¶ 28 , citing State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516, 527 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2017See State v. Roberts , 109 Ohio App.3d 634 , 639, 672 N.E.2d 1053 (6th Dist.1996). {¶ 24} Because Love has established that the trial court committed plain error by failing to properly instruct the jury, we sustain his first assignment of error. 2017See State v. Roberts , 109 Ohio App.3d 634 , 639, 672 N.E.2d 1053 (6th Dist.1996). {¶ 24} Because Love has established that the trial court committed plain error by failing to properly instruct the jury, we sustain his first assignment of error. | 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. Lipkins
green
1 sentence2021State v. Lipkins, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-616, 2017-Ohio-4085, ¶ 28 , citing State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516, 527 (1992). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Masters v. Masters
green
1 sentence2005Masters v. Masters (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 83 , 85 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
City of Columbus v. Seabolt
green
1 sentence2003While one might speculate that she had driven the vehicle into the mud where it became mired and immobile, there was no direct evidence that she did so and no circumstantial evidence sufficient to allow that finding beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 237 . {¶ 13} Nonetheless, as the State points out in its appellee's brief, focusing solely on the issue of an automobile's potentiality for movement is an incomplete analysis in these types of cases. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Huffman
green
2 sentences1984State v. Huffman (1936), 131 Ohio St. 27 [ 5 O.O. 325 ], paragraph six of the syllabus; R.C. 2945.83(D); Crim. 1984State v. Huffman (1936), 131 Ohio St. 27 [ 5 O.O. 325 ], paragraph six of the syllabus; R.C. 2945.83(D); Crim. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.