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.
25 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2026 23 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. Hundley (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2022See State v. Hundley, 162 Ohio St.3d 509 , 2020-Ohio-3775 , 166 N.E.3d 1066, ¶ 128 (recognizing that R.C. 2929.05(A) requires de novo review of findings and other issues within its scope). 23 HOCKING, 21CA8 Id. at ¶ 4; State v. Arbogast, 4th Dist. 2022See State v. Hundley, 162 Ohio St.3d 509 , 2020-Ohio-3775 , 166 N.E.3d 1066, ¶ 128 (recognizing that R.C. 2929.05(A) requires de novo review of findings and other issues within its scope). 23 HOCKING, 21CA8 Id. at ¶ 4; State v. Arbogast, 4th Dist. | 13 | 13 |
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2026See State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42 ("R.C. 2953.08[G][2] does not permit an appellate court to conduct a freestanding inquiry like the independent sentence evaluation this court must conduct under R.C. 2929.05[A] when reviewing a death penalty-sentence"). 2026See State v. Booker, 2022-Ohio-3433, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), quoting Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, at ¶ 42 (“‘R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to conduct a freestanding inquiry[.]’”). | 7 | 13 |
State v. Toles (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2022See also State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397 , 2021-Ohio-3531 , 186 N.E.3d 784 (affirming based on Jones where a defendant argued the record did not support certain findings). {¶102} In addition, as to Appellant’s claim the trial court failed to consider certain general sentencing factors, we point out “neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 31 and State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000 2022See also State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397 , 2021-Ohio-3531 , 186 N.E.3d 784 (affirming based on Jones where a defendant argued the record did not support certain findings). {¶102} In addition, as to Appellant’s claim the trial court failed to consider certain general sentencing factors, we point out “neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 31 and State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bookergreen1 sentence2026See State v. Booker, 2022-Ohio-3433, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), quoting Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, at ¶ 42 (“‘R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to conduct a freestanding inquiry[.]’”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Arnettgreen2 sentences2022See also State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397 , 2021-Ohio-3531 , 186 N.E.3d 784 (affirming based on Jones where a defendant argued the record did not support certain findings). {¶102} In addition, as to Appellant’s claim the trial court failed to consider certain general sentencing factors, we point out “neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 31 and State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000 2022See also State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397 , 2021-Ohio-3531 , 186 N.E.3d 784 (affirming based on Jones where a defendant argued the record did not support certain findings). {¶102} In addition, as to Appellant’s claim the trial court failed to consider certain general sentencing factors, we point out “neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 31 and State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2022See also State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397 , 2021-Ohio-3531 , 186 N.E.3d 784 (affirming based on Jones where a defendant argued the record did not support certain findings). {¶102} In addition, as to Appellant’s claim the trial court failed to consider certain general sentencing factors, we point out “neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 31 and State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000 2022See also State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397 , 2021-Ohio-3531 , 186 N.E.3d 784 (affirming based on Jones where a defendant argued the record did not support certain findings). {¶102} In addition, as to Appellant’s claim the trial court failed to consider certain general sentencing factors, we point out “neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 31 and State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Raygreen2 sentences2019Others have classified emergency aid as “a subcategory of the community caretaking exception.” People v. Ray, 21 Cal.4th 464 , 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 981 P.2d 928, 933 (1999). 2019Others have classified emergency aid as “a subcategory of the community caretaking exception.” People v. Ray, 21 Cal.4th 464 , 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 981 P.2d 928, 933 (1999). | 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.