203 Ohio opinions name it 6 courts 1990–2026 27 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. Homangreen2 sentences2024Bruner, citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964); State v. Timson, 38 Ohio St.2d 122, 127 (1974). “‘In an OVI case, a finding of probable cause may be supported by the totality of the circumstances even absent the administration of a field sobriety test.’” Bruner at ¶ 11 , quoting State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (2000), paragraph one of the syllabus. 2018Pickaway No. 05CA18, 2005-Ohio-5776, ¶ 26 , citing State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427 , 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000) (rejecting appellant’s argument that the State cannot prove probable cause for an arrest without admissible field sobriety tests). {¶21} Even without considering the field sobriety test results, because of the totality of the remaining facts and circumstances, we find there was adequate probable cause to arrest King for marijuana impaired OVI. | 3 | 62 |
Village of Kirtland Hills v. Strogin, Unpublished Decision (3-24-2006)green2 sentences2020Lake App. No.2005–L–073, 2006-Ohio-1450, ¶ 13 (internal citation omitted). {¶34} In analyzing similar cases, we have accepted the template set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 , 2007–Ohio–2204, 865 N.E.2d 1282 , paragraph two of the syllabus: “The ‘reasonable and articulable’ standard applied to a prolonged traffic stop encompasses the totality of the circumstances, and a court may not evaluate in isolation each articulated reason for the stop.” The intrusion on the drivers’ liberty resulting from a field sobriety test is minor, and the officer theref 2019Lake App. No.2005–L–073, 2006-Ohio-1450, ¶ 13 (internal citation omitted). {¶30} In analyzing similar cases, we have accepted the template set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 , 2007–Ohio–2204, 865 N.E.2d 1282 , paragraph two of the syllabus: “The ‘reasonable and articulable’ standard applied to a prolonged traffic stop encompasses the totality of the circumstances, and a court may not evaluate in isolation each articulated reason for the stop.” The intrusion on the drivers’ liberty resulting from a field sobriety test is minor, and the officer theref | 3 | 3 |
State v. Schmittgreen2 sentences2022Fairfield No. 2020 CA 00015, 2021-Ohio-156 , 2021 WL 223811 , ¶ 30 quoting Columbus v. Mullins, 162 St 419, 123 N.E.2d 422 (1954); State v. Schmidt, [Cite as State v. Palmer, 2022-Ohio-1968 .] 101 Ohio St.3d 79 , 2004-Ohio-37 , 801 N.E.2d 446 (even when the final results of a field sobriety test are excluded because they were not administered in substantial compliance, an officer may testify as a lay witness about the officer's observation of the defendant's performance); State v. Ricer, 5th Dist. 2022Fairfield No. 2020 CA 00015, 2021-Ohio-156 , 2021 WL 223811 , ¶ 30 quoting Columbus v. Mullins, 162 St 419, 123 N.E.2d 422 (1954); State v. Schmidt, [Cite as State v. Palmer, 2022-Ohio-1968 .] 101 Ohio St.3d 79 , 2004-Ohio-37 , 801 N.E.2d 446 (even when the final results of a field sobriety test are excluded because they were not administered in substantial compliance, an officer may testify as a lay witness about the officer's observation of the defendant's performance); State v. Ricer, 5th Dist. | 2 | 31 |
State v. Shindlergreen2 sentences2025See State v. Shindler, 70 Ohio St.3d 54 (1994), at syllabus. {¶15} R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b) provides, in part, as follows: [I]f a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the officer administered the test in substantial compliance with the testing standards for any reliable, credible, and generally accepted field sobriety 7 tests that were in effect at the time the tests were administered, including, but not limited to, any testing standards then in effect that w 2025See State v. Shindler, 70 Ohio St.3d 54 (1994), at syllabus. {¶15} R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b) provides, in part, as follows: [I]f a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the officer administered the test in substantial compliance with the testing standards for any reliable, credible, and generally accepted field sobriety 7 tests that were in effect at the time the tests were administered, including, but not limited to, any testing standards then in effect that w | 2 | 5 |
City of Columbus v. Andersongreen2 sentences2014Id.; see also Columbus v. Anderson, 74 Ohio App.3d 768, 770 (10th Dist.1991) (police officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests when driver was stopped in early morning hours after officer observed the driver speeding and when the officer noticed a moderate odor of alcohol on the driver after making the traffic stop); State v. Brock, 12th Dist. 2008Rather, he contends that Officer Wurgler improperly detained him for the administration of a field sobriety test. {¶ 18} It has been established that "probable cause is not needed before an officer conducts field sobriety tests." Columbus v. Anderson (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 768 , 770 ; State v. Gustin (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 859 . | 2 | 4 |
Ornelas v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017However, as the United States Supreme Court held in Ornelas v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 , “... as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal.” {¶17} In the case sub judice, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in considering Appellant’s performance on the field sobriety test or the results of the portable Fairfield County, Case No. 16 CA 33 5 breath test. 2017However, as the United States Supreme Court held in Ornelas v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 , “... as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal.” {¶17} In the case sub judice, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in considering Appellant’s performance on the field sobriety test or the results of the portable Fairfield County, Case No. 16 CA 33 5 breath test. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Bressongreen2 sentences2006We conclude R.C. 4511.19 (D)(4)(b) does not conflict with, or attempt to supersede, Evid.R. 702. {¶ 22} In State v. Bresson (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 123 , the Ohio Supreme Court held expert testimony was not required as a predicate to the admission of the results of a field sobriety test. 1999The Supreme Court has discussed the required foundation for a police officer to testify as to his/her observations regarding the field sobriety test called horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) as follows: "the only requirement prior to admission is the officer's knowledge of the test, his training, and his ability to interpret his observations. * * * The admission of the results of the HGN test is no different from any other field sobriety test, such as finger-to-nose, walk-and-turn, or one-leg stand." Bresson , supra at 129. | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Plunkett, Ca2007-01-012 (3-10-2008)green | 2 | 2 |
State v. Boczargreen2 sentences2009The Court ultimately held: "A law enforcement officer may testify at trial regarding observations made during a defendant's performance of nonscientific standardized field sobriety tests." Id., at the syllabus. {¶ 16} The Court in Schmitt further acknowledged the General Assembly's post- Homan revisions to R.C. 4511.19 (D)(4)(b). 2 This statute now reads as follows: {¶ 17} "In any criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section, * * * if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle invol 2008We disagree. {¶ 20} In the case at bar, appellant was charged with a violation of R.C. 4511.19 , which states in pertinent part: "(A) (1) No person shall operate any vehicle, * * *, if, at the time of the operation, any of the following apply: (a) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them." {¶ 21} R.C. 4511.19 further provides, in pertinent part: {¶ 22} "In any criminal prosecution * * * for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section, * * * if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle in | 1 | 6 |
Beck v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2024Bruner, citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964); State v. Timson, 38 Ohio St.2d 122, 127 (1974). “‘In an OVI case, a finding of probable cause may be supported by the totality of the circumstances even absent the administration of a field sobriety test.’” Bruner at ¶ 11 , quoting State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (2000), paragraph one of the syllabus. 2008State v. Homan , 89 Ohio St. 3d 421 , 427 , 2000-Ohio-212 , citing Beck v. Ohio (1964), 379 U.S. 89, 91 ; State v. Timson (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 122 , 127 . {¶ 29} To the extent that the State seeks to use the results of a field sobriety test as a basis for probable cause to arrest, the police must have administered the test in substantial compliance with standardized testing procedures. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Timsongreen2 sentences2024Bruner, citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964); State v. Timson, 38 Ohio St.2d 122, 127 (1974). “‘In an OVI case, a finding of probable cause may be supported by the totality of the circumstances even absent the administration of a field sobriety test.’” Bruner at ¶ 11 , quoting State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (2000), paragraph one of the syllabus. 2008State v. Homan , 89 Ohio St. 3d 421 , 427 , 2000-Ohio-212 , citing Beck v. Ohio (1964), 379 U.S. 89, 91 ; State v. Timson (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 122 , 127 . {¶ 29} To the extent that the State seeks to use the results of a field sobriety test as a basis for probable cause to arrest, the police must have administered the test in substantial compliance with standardized testing procedures. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Evansgreen2 sentences2020Cuyahoga No. 97664, 2012-Ohio- 3458, ¶ 29, citing State v. Evans, 127 Ohio App.3d 56, 62 , 711 N.E.2d 761 (11th Dist.1998) (outlining what is considered reasonable suspicion to conduct a field sobriety test). 2020Cuyahoga No. 97664, 2012-Ohio- 3458, ¶ 29, citing State v. Evans, 127 Ohio App.3d 56, 62 , 711 N.E.2d 761 (11th Dist.1998) (outlining what is considered reasonable suspicion to conduct a field sobriety test). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Gozdan, Unpublished Decision (6-18-2004)green2 sentences2010No. 03 CA 792, 2004-Ohio-3209 , 2004 WL 1379791 , at ¶ 10 (“merely stating that * * * [the field sobriety test] was not performed in strict compliance provides no factual basis to support the allegation”). {¶ 18} In Kale , the defendant took what this court termed a “throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks” approach, listing many grounds in a boilerplate fashion, without linking those grounds to any particular facts in the case. 2010No. 03- CA-792, 2004-Ohio-3209, at ¶10 (“merely stating that * * * [the field sobriety test] was not performed in strict compliance provides no factual basis to support the allegation.”) {¶20} Based on this court’s prior holdings, Phillips never shifted the burden to the state to prove that Trooper Herink administered the field sobriety tests in substantial compliance with the NHTSA standards. | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Napiergreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Hinkstongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Zanesville v. Reavergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Panarogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cleveland v. Oles (Slip Opinion)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Farrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Casesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Michael Kinlin v. Shawn Klinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Andrewsgreen | 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. Homan
green
2 sentences2008State v. Homan , 89 Ohio St. 3d 421 , 427 , 2000-Ohio-212 , citing Beck v. Ohio (1964), 379 U.S. 89, 91 ; State v. Timson (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 122 , 127 . {¶ 29} To the extent that the State seeks to use the results of a field sobriety test as a basis for probable cause to arrest, the police must have administered the test in substantial compliance with standardized testing procedures. 2006However, Lewis' argument lacks merit. {¶ 10} The Ohio Supreme Court held in State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 , 2000-Ohio-212 , 732 N.E.2d 952 , paragraph one of the syllabus, that the results of a field sobriety test may serve as evidence of probable cause to arrest when the tests are administered in strict compliance with standardized testing procedures. | 17 | 2002–2008 |
State v. Batchili
green
2 sentences2023“All of these factors, together with the officer's previous experience in dealing with drunken drivers, may be taken into account by a reviewing court in determining whether the officer acted reasonably.” Id. {¶14} In analyzing the facts presented, we accept the template set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 , 2007–Ohio–2204, 865 N.E.2d 1282 , paragraph two of the syllabus: “The ‘reasonable and articulable’ standard applied to a prolonged traffic stop encompasses the totality of the circumstances, and a court may not evaluate in isolation each articula 2023“All of these factors, together with the officer's previous experience in dealing with drunken drivers, may be taken into account by a reviewing court in determining whether the officer acted reasonably.” Id. {¶14} In analyzing the facts presented, we accept the template set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 , 2007–Ohio–2204, 865 N.E.2d 1282 , paragraph two of the syllabus: “The ‘reasonable and articulable’ standard applied to a prolonged traffic stop encompasses the totality of the circumstances, and a court may not evaluate in isolation each articula | 7 | 2018–2023 |
State v. Locker
neutral
2 sentences2021Stark App. No. 2015CA00050, 2015-Ohio-4953, ¶ 36 , citing State v. Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291 , 414 N.E.2d 1044 (1980). {¶20} “Requiring a driver to submit to a field sobriety test constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. 2021Stark App. No. Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00160 6 2015CA00050, 2015-Ohio-4953, ¶ 36 , citing State v. Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291 , 414 N.E.2d 1044 (1980). {¶16} “Requiring a driver to submit to a field sobriety test constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. | 6 | 2018–2021 |
Ohio v. Freeman
green
2 sentences2021Stark App. No. 2015CA00050, 2015-Ohio-4953, ¶ 36 , citing State v. Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291 , 414 N.E.2d 1044 (1980). {¶20} “Requiring a driver to submit to a field sobriety test constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. 2021Stark App. No. 2015CA00050, 2015-Ohio-4953, ¶ 36 , citing State v. Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291 , 414 N.E.2d 1044 (1980). {¶20} “Requiring a driver to submit to a field sobriety test constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. | 6 | 2018–2021 |
State v. Keserich
green
2 sentences2023Ashland No. 14-COA-011, 2014-Ohio-5120, ¶ 8 , quoting State v. Bright, 5th Dist. 2023Ashland No. 14-COA-011, 2014-Ohio-5120, ¶ 8 , quoting State v. Bright, 5th Dist. | 5 | 2020–2023 |
State v. Burnside
green
2 sentences2017(Citations omitted.) State v. James , 2016-Ohio-7262 , 71 N.E.3d 1257 , ¶ 8 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Burnside , 100 Ohio St.3d 152 , 2003-Ohio-5372 , 797 N.E.2d 71 , ¶ 8. {¶ 12} R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b) governs the admissibility of field sobriety tests and reads, in its relevant part, as follows: In any criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section * * * if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that t 2017(Citations omitted.) State v. James , 2016-Ohio-7262 , 71 N.E.3d 1257 , ¶ 8 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Burnside , 100 Ohio St.3d 152 , 2003-Ohio-5372 , 797 N.E.2d 71 , ¶ 8. {¶ 12} R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b) governs the admissibility of field sobriety tests and reads, in its relevant part, as follows: In any criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section * * * if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that t | 5 | 2008–2017 |
State v. Reynolds
neutral
2 sentences2023Greene No. 2012-CA-64, 2014-Ohio-3642, ¶ 27 . 2021Greene No. 2012-CA- 64, 2014-Ohio-3642, ¶ 27 . {¶ 19} Here, Kiefer testified that he had been trained on how to conduct field sobriety tests in accordance with the NHTSA manual. | 4 | 2020–2023 |
City of Xenia v. Wallace
green
2 sentences2011Instead, he moved: "Fro [sic] an Order dismissing the charge contained in the Indictment, as the arrest was made on private property, or, in the alternative, suppressing any and all evidence obtained, as there was no probable cause to stop and/or arrest defendant." {¶46} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that in a motion to suppress "the accused must state the motion's legal and factual bases with sufficient particularity to place the prosecutor and the court on notice of the issues to be decided." State v. Shindler (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 54 , 636 N.E.2d 319 , at syllabus (construing and followin 2011Instead, he moved: "Fro [sic] an Order dismissing the charge contained in the Indictment, as the arrest was made on private property, or, in the alternative, suppressing any and all evidence obtained, as there was no probable cause to stop and/or arrest defendant." {¶46} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that in a motion to suppress "the accused must state the motion's legal and factual bases with sufficient particularity to place the prosecutor and the court on notice of the issues to be decided." State v. Shindler (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 54 , 636 N.E.2d 319 , at syllabus (construing and followin | 4 | 2006–2011 |
State v. Codeluppi
green
2 sentences2026Myers asserts that Wireman was therefore not familiar with the governing standards for such tests in effect at the time the field tests were administered in this case, and that Wireman failed to screen, or question, Myers about potential injuries or physical limitations that could impact his ability to perform the tests. {¶48} The admissibility of results of field sobriety tests in OVI prosecutions is governed by R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b), which provides in relevant part: In any criminal prosecution * * * for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section, * * * if a law enforcement officer ha 2020We conclude that it could not. {¶ 28} As observed by the Ohio Supreme Court, “a video recording of the field sobriety test” constitutes “[t]he primary source of evidence normally available to an OVI defendant.” State v. Codeluppi, 139 Ohio St.3d 165 , 2014-Ohio-1574 , 10 N.E.3d 691, ¶ 14 . | 3 | 2020–2026 |
State v. Finch
green
2 sentences2024“Probable cause may exist even in the absence of any evidence of impaired motor coordination.” Id., citing State v. Finch, 24 Ohio App.3d 38 , 492 N.E.2d 1254 (12th Dist.1985). {¶ 47} We agree with the State that, even in the absence of the field sobriety test results, probable cause for Quinones’s arrest was demonstrated by the cruiser video. 2024“Probable cause may exist even in the absence of any evidence of impaired motor coordination.” Id., citing State v. Finch, 24 Ohio App.3d 38 , 492 N.E.2d 1254 (12th Dist.1985). {¶ 47} We agree with the State that, even in the absence of the field sobriety test results, probable cause for Quinones’s arrest was demonstrated by the cruiser video. | 3 | 1999–2024 |
State v. Sunday, Unpublished Decision (6-14-2006)
green
2 sentences2023Summit No. 22917, 2006-Ohio-2984, ¶ 20 , quoting R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b). 2021Summit No. 22917, 2006-Ohio-2984, ¶ 20-21 , quoting R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b). | 3 | 2013–2023 |
State v. George
green
2 sentences2020Wayne No. 13CA0036, 2014-Ohio-4123, ¶ 7 , quoting R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b). 2017Wayne No. 13CA0036, 2014-Ohio-4123 , 2014 WL 4670872 , ¶ 7, quoting R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b). | 3 | 2015–2020 |
State v. Gustin
green
2 sentences2008Rather, he contends that Officer Wurgler improperly detained him for the administration of a field sobriety test. {¶ 18} It has been established that "probable cause is not needed before an officer conducts field sobriety tests." Columbus v. Anderson (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 768 , 770 ; State v. Gustin (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 859 . 1999State v. Gustin (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 859 , 860 . | 3 | 1999–2008 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2008No. 2006-P-0117, 2007-Ohio-4954 , ¶ 18 , citing State v. Brown , 166 Ohio App.3d 638 , 2006 Ohio 1172 * * *." (Parallel citation omitted.) {¶ 33} R.C. 4511.19 (D)(4)(b) provides in part: {¶ 34} "In any criminal prosecution * * * for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section, * * * if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the *Page 9 operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the officer administered the test in substantial compliance with the testing standards for any reliable, credible, and 2008No. 2006-P-0117, 2007-Ohio-4954 , ¶ 18 , citing State v. Brown , 166 Ohio App.3d 638 , 2006 Ohio 1172 * * *." (Parallel citation omitted.) {¶ 33} R.C. 4511.19 (D)(4)(b) provides in part: {¶ 34} "In any criminal prosecution * * * for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section, * * * if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the *Page 9 operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the officer administered the test in substantial compliance with the testing standards for any reliable, credible, and | 3 | 2007–2008 |
City of Tallmadge v. McCoy
green
2 sentences2024Tallmadge v. McCoy, 96 Ohio App.3d 604, 610 , 645 N.E.2d 802 (9th Dist.1994). “[T]he HGN test is a reliable test for determining if a person in [sic] under the influence and can Case No. 23 MA 0123 – 15 – be used to establish probable cause[.]” Westlake v. Goodman, 8th Dist. 2024Tallmadge v. McCoy, 96 Ohio App.3d 604, 610 , 645 N.E.2d 802 (9th Dist.1994). “[T]he HGN test is a reliable test for determining if a person in [sic] under the influence and can Case No. 23 MA 0123 – 15 – be used to establish probable cause[.]” Westlake v. Goodman, 8th Dist. | 2 | 2023–2024 |
State v. Brandenburg
green
2 sentences2024“Probable cause may exist even in the absence of any evidence of impaired motor coordination.” Id., citing State v. Finch, 24 Ohio App.3d 38 , 492 N.E.2d 1254 (12th Dist.1985). {¶ 47} We agree with the State that, even in the absence of the field sobriety test results, probable cause for Quinones’s arrest was demonstrated by the cruiser video. 2003Homan, citing State v. Miller (1997), 117 Ohio App.3d 750 , 761 , and State v. Brandenburg (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 109 . {¶ 12} Under Ohio law, "[i]n order for the results of a field sobriety test to serve as evidence of probable cause to arrest, the police must have administered the test in strict compliance with standardized testing procedures." Homan at paragraph one of the syllabus. | 2 | 2003–2024 |
State v. Ricer
green
2 sentences2022Ashland No. 17-COA-023, 2018-Ohio-426 . {¶34} Sieg had two separate interactions with Palmer. 2021Ashland No. 17-COA-023, 2018-Ohio-426 . {¶31} Bullock testified he observed appellant travelling at an excessive speed. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
State v. Malkin
neutral
2 sentences2021Licking No. 2019 CA 0100, 2020-Ohio-3059 , 2020 WL 2611679 , ¶ 28 quoting State v. Bright, 5th Dist. 2021Licking No. 2019 CA 0100, 2020-Ohio-3059 , 2020 WL 2611679 , ¶ 28 quoting State v. Bright, 5th Dist. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Curry green | 2 | 2001–2018 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 2 | 2011–2017 |
| State v. James neutral | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Barnett, 2006-P-0117 (9-21-2007) green | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Robinson green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Iloba green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Reed, Unpublished Decision (12-19-2006) green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In re A.B. neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Findlay v. Jackson green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Garrett, Unpublished Decision (9-16-2005) green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Henry, Ca2008-05-008 (1-5-2009) green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Palmer green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Scott green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (5-14-2004) neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Adams green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Conley, 2007 Ca 52 (2-15-2008) neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Allen, Unpublished Decision (1-6-2006) neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Prado Navarette v. California green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Swartz, 2008 Ca 31 (2-27-2009) green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Filip green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Forquer neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.