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.
27 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2021 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. Wilsongreen2 sentences2002See State v. Wilson (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 381, 398 , 659 N.E.2d 292 . 2002See State v. Wilson (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 381, 398 , 659 N.E.2d 292 . | 2 | 2 |
Clemons v. Mississippigreen2 sentences1995See Clemons v. Mississippi (1990), 494 U.S. 738 , 110 S.Ct. 1441 , 108 L.Ed.2d 725 ; State v. Landrum, supra. Proposition of law twenty-six is rejected. 1995See Clemons v. Mississippi (1990), 494 U.S. 738 , 110 S.Ct. 1441 , 108 L.Ed.2d 725 ; State v. Landrum, supra. Proposition of law twenty-six is rejected. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Beemangreen1 sentence2015State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 , 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995) (“doctrine [of cumulative error] is not applicable” where the reviewing court does “not find multiple instances of harmless error”). {¶159} The seventh assignment of error is without merit. {¶160} For the foregoing reasons, Kevin’s convictions are affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garnergreen1 sentence2015State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 , 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995) (“doctrine [of cumulative error] is not applicable” where the reviewing court does “not find multiple instances of harmless error”). {¶159} The seventh assignment of error is without merit. {¶160} For the foregoing reasons, Kevin’s convictions are affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Vonn
green
2 sentences2012“A silent defendant has the burden to satisfy the plain-error rule[,] and a reviewing court may consult the whole record when considering the effect of any error on substantial rights.” Scioto App. No. 10CA3344 12 State v. Davis, Highland App. No. 06CA21, 2007-Ohio-3944, at ¶22 , citing United States v. Vonn (2002), 535 U.S. 55, 59 , 122 S.Ct. 1043 , 152 L.Ed.2d 90 . {¶23} For a reviewing court to find plain error: 1.) there must be an error, i.e. “a deviation from a legal rule”; 2.) the error must be plain, i.e. “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings”; and 3.) the error must have affec 2012“A silent defendant has the burden to satisfy the plain-error rule[,] and a reviewing court may consult the whole record when considering the effect of any error on substantial rights.” Scioto App. No. 10CA3344 12 State v. Davis, Highland App. No. 06CA21, 2007-Ohio-3944, at ¶22 , citing United States v. Vonn (2002), 535 U.S. 55, 59 , 122 S.Ct. 1043 , 152 L.Ed.2d 90 . {¶23} For a reviewing court to find plain error: 1.) there must be an error, i.e. “a deviation from a legal rule”; 2.) the error must be plain, i.e. “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings”; and 3.) the error must have affec | 19 | 2004–2019 |
State v. Davis, 06ca21 (7-26-2007)
green
2 sentences2012“A silent defendant has the burden to satisfy the plain-error rule[,] and a reviewing court may consult the whole record when considering the effect of any error on substantial rights.” Scioto App. No. 10CA3344 12 State v. Davis, Highland App. No. 06CA21, 2007-Ohio-3944, at ¶22 , citing United States v. Vonn (2002), 535 U.S. 55, 59 , 122 S.Ct. 1043 , 152 L.Ed.2d 90 . {¶23} For a reviewing court to find plain error: 1.) there must be an error, i.e. “a deviation from a legal rule”; 2.) the error must be plain, i.e. “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings”; and 3.) the error must have affec 2011“A silent defendant has the burden to –10– satisfy the plain-error rule[,] and a reviewing court may consult the whole record when considering the effect of any error on substantial rights.” State v. Davis, Highland App. No. 06CA21, 2007-Ohio-3944, ¶22 , citing United States v. Vonn (2002), 535 U.S. 55, 59 , 1225 S.Ct. 1043 , 152 L.Ed. 2d 90 . | 16 | 2008–2019 |
State v. Barnes
green
2 sentences2010“A silent defendant has the burden to satisfy the plain-error rule[,] and a reviewing court may consult the whole record when considering the effect of any error on substantial rights.” State v. Davis, Highland App. No. 06CA21, 2007-Ohio-3944, at ¶22 , citing United States v. Vonn (2002), 535 U.S. 55, 59 , 122 S.Ct. 1043 , 152 L.Ed.2d 90 . {¶43} For a reviewing court to find plain error: (1) there must be an error, i.e., “a deviation from a legal rule”; (2) the error must be plain, i.e., “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings”; and (3) the error must have affected “substantial rights,” 2010“A silent defendant has the burden to satisfy the plain-error rule[,] and a reviewing court may consult the whole record when considering the effect of any error on substantial rights.” State v. Davis, Highland App. No. 06CA21, 2007-Ohio-3944, at ¶22 , citing United States v. Vonn (2002), 535 U.S. 55, 59 , 122 S.Ct. 1043 , 152 L.Ed.2d 90 . {¶43} For a reviewing court to find plain error: (1) there must be an error, i.e., “a deviation from a legal rule”; (2) the error must be plain, i.e., “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings”; and (3) the error must have affected “substantial rights,” | 5 | 2009–2019 |
State v. Barnes
green
2 sentences2012State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 . 2011State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 . | 3 | 2009–2012 |
Funtime, Inc. v. Wilkins
green
2 sentences2021Due to the binding precedent discussed below, the effect of any such error would be harmless. {¶12} In Funtime, Inc. v. Wilkins, 105 Ohio St.3d 74 , 2004-Ohio-6890 , the Supreme Court of Ohio engaged in an analysis of property for tax purposes under R.C. 5701.02 and R.C. 5701.03. 2021Due to the binding precedent discussed below, the effect of any such error would be harmless. {¶12} In Funtime, Inc. v. Wilkins, 105 Ohio St.3d 74 , 2004-Ohio-6890 , the Supreme Court of Ohio engaged in an analysis of property for tax purposes under R.C. 5701.02 and R.C. 5701.03. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Rizer
green
1 sentence2012Furthermore, “[a] silent defendant has the burden to satisfy the plain-error rule[,] and a reviewing court may consult the whole record when considering the effect of any error on substantial rights.” State v. Rizer, Meigs App. No. 10CA3, 2011-Ohio-5702, at ¶26 ; State v. Davis, Highland App. No. 06CA21, 2007–Ohio–3944, at ¶22. {¶ 13} Although it is unclear why a definition for recklessness was included in the jury instructions, we conclude that it did not affect a substantial right or inflict a miscarriage of justice. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Long
green
2 sentences2010Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Ohio has admonished courts that notice of plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) is to be taken “with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of Ross App. No. 09CA3132 20 justice.” Id., quoting State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 , at paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶44} As already noted, when analyzing the propriety of a mistrial, we presume that the jury will follow the court’s curative instructions concerning improper witness comments. 2010Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Ohio has admonished courts that notice of plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) is to be taken “with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of Ross App. No. 09CA3132 20 justice.” Id., quoting State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 , at paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶44} As already noted, when analyzing the propriety of a mistrial, we presume that the jury will follow the court’s curative instructions concerning improper witness comments. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In re M.D.
green
2 sentences1992State v. Landrum, supra. In his fourth proposition of law, Mills argues for a plain-error standard broader than that specified in State v. Long, supra. Mills suggests the test to be whether an error, “if uncorrected, would have a substantial adverse impact upon the integrity of and public confidence in judicial proceedings.” See In re M.D. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 149 , 527 N.E.2d 286 . 1992State v. Landrum, supra. In his fourth proposition of law, Mills argues for a plain-error standard broader than that specified in State v. Long, supra. Mills suggests the test to be whether an error, “if uncorrected, would have a substantial adverse impact upon the integrity of and public confidence in judicial proceedings.” See In re M.D. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 149 , 527 N.E.2d 286 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.