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.
21 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2026 6 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. Stevensgreen2 sentences2023In our view, the surety was afforded sufficient due process by the trial court in a manner provided by Crim.R. 46(J). 30 Ohio St.3d 25, 27 , 505 N.E.2d 972 (1987). {¶19} Sureties are provided constructive notice of a continuation of bond by way of the court's entry, and are obligated to remain informed about the status of its principle's case. 2023In our view, the surety was afforded sufficient due process by the trial court in a manner provided by Crim.R. 46(J). 30 Ohio St.3d 25, 27 , 505 N.E.2d 972 (1987). {¶19} Sureties are provided constructive notice of a continuation of bond by way of the court's entry, and are obligated to remain informed about the status of its principle's case. | 1 | 2 |
McCoy v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2026Some decisions, however, are reserved for the defendant/client—“notably, whether to plead guilty, waive the right to a jury trial, testify in one’s own behalf, and forgo an appeal.” McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 422 (2018), citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983). {¶57} On February 25, 2024, prior to trial, a status hearing was held wherein Mr. Norman rejected a plea offer that would require him to plead guilty to felonious assault and domestic violence in Case No. 2023-CR-567 (involving an unknown victim) to run PAGE 18 OF 30 Case No. 2025-A-0023 consecutively with charges of fel 2026Some decisions, however, are reserved for the defendant/client—“notably, whether to plead guilty, waive the right to a jury trial, testify in one’s own behalf, and forgo an appeal.” McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 422 (2018), citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983). {¶57} On February 25, 2024, prior to trial, a status hearing was held wherein Mr. Norman rejected a plea offer that would require him to plead guilty to felonious assault and domestic violence in Case No. 2023-CR-567 (involving an unknown victim) to run PAGE 18 OF 30 Case No. 2025-A-0023 consecutively with charges of fel | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2026Some decisions, however, are reserved for the defendant/client—“notably, whether to plead guilty, waive the right to a jury trial, testify in one’s own behalf, and forgo an appeal.” McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 422 (2018), citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983). {¶57} On February 25, 2024, prior to trial, a status hearing was held wherein Mr. Norman rejected a plea offer that would require him to plead guilty to felonious assault and domestic violence in Case No. 2023-CR-567 (involving an unknown victim) to run PAGE 18 OF 30 Case No. 2025-A-0023 consecutively with charges of fel 2026Some decisions, however, are reserved for the defendant/client—“notably, whether to plead guilty, waive the right to a jury trial, testify in one’s own behalf, and forgo an appeal.” McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 422 (2018), citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983). {¶57} On February 25, 2024, prior to trial, a status hearing was held wherein Mr. Norman rejected a plea offer that would require him to plead guilty to felonious assault and domestic violence in Case No. 2023-CR-567 (involving an unknown victim) to run PAGE 18 OF 30 Case No. 2025-A-0023 consecutively with charges of fel | 1 | 1 |
Cleveland v. Kushlakgreen1 sentence2025Had Jones been afforded a proper opportunity to present a defense, he may have wished to call [witnesses] to corroborate his assertion[s.]”); Cleveland v. Kushlak, 2022-Ohio-4402, ¶ 48 (8th Dist.) (remanding the case to the housing court “to hold a hearing to determine the status of, not Kushlak’s compliance with, the conditions of his” CCS). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Jones, 2016-Ohio-2626, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.) (Stewart, J., dissenting) (“Because of the court’s hastiness in converting the status hearing to a termination proceeding without any prior notice, Jones was left with no option but to assert his defense in a beseeching fashion, without any evidence to support his claims. 2025See State v. Jones, 2016-Ohio-2626, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.) (Stewart, J., dissenting) (“Because of the court’s hastiness in converting the status hearing to a termination proceeding without any prior notice, Jones was left with no option but to assert his defense in a beseeching fashion, without any evidence to support his claims. | 1 | 1 |
Tammie J.C. v. Robert T.R.green2 sentences2017See In re Thomas T.R., 262 Wis.2d 217, 233-237 , 663 N.W.2d 734 (2003) (examining the cases that have considered the present constitutional issue and joining the “many states” that have applied the status exception to the general personal jurisdiction requirements). 16. 2017See In re Thomas T.R., 262 Wis.2d 217, 233-237 , 663 N.W.2d 734 (2003) (examining the cases that have considered the present constitutional issue and joining the “many states” that have applied the status exception to the general personal jurisdiction requirements). 16. | 1 | 1 |
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratoriesgreen1 sentence2007See Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 199 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hernandez v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2007The aggregate sentence for the offenses was listed as 3.67 years with a release date of March 4, 2008. {¶ 9} On July 17, 2006, in response to the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Hernandez v. Kelley , 108 Ohio St.3d 395 , 2006-Ohio-126 , 844 N.E.2d 301 , the trial court set a status hearing to "re-advise" appellant of his post-release control obligations. *Page 4 At the hearing, at which appellant was present, the trial court stated on the record, in relevant part, as follows: {¶ 10} "I have brought you back to have a lawyer stand with you and to recount the number of times that you were advis 2007The aggregate sentence for the offenses was listed as 3.67 years with a release date of March 4, 2008. {¶ 9} On July 17, 2006, in response to the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Hernandez v. Kelley , 108 Ohio St.3d 395 , 2006-Ohio-126 , 844 N.E.2d 301 , the trial court set a status hearing to "re-advise" appellant of his post-release control obligations. *Page 4 At the hearing, at which appellant was present, the trial court stated on the record, in relevant part, as follows: {¶ 10} "I have brought you back to have a lawyer stand with you and to recount the number of times that you were advis | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State ex rel. Johnston v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation
green
2 sentences2002Regardless of the status of the claim at the time of death, the claimant’s estate may recover the compensation that the 2 January Term, 2002 claimant would have received, but for administrative delays, during his or her lifetime.” Id. {¶9} The widow-claimant in this case argues that the processing of decedent’s application was unreasonably delayed by, for example, the commission’s insistence on a commission/bureau medical exam. 2002Regardless of the status of the claim at the time of death, the claimant’s estate may recover the compensation that the claimant would have received, but for administrative delays, during his or her lifetime.” Id. {¶ 9} The widow-claimant in this case argues that the processing of decedent’s application was unreasonably delayed by, for example, the commission’s insistence on a commission/bureau medical exam. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
McCullough v. Bennett
green
1 sentence2026Id. at ¶ 26-33, applying McCullough v. Bennett, 2024-Ohio-2783 (where the Supreme Court ruled on R.C. 2305.19(A)’s saving statute). {¶5} After our remand, the trial court held a status hearing and then issued a scheduling order with deadlines. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2025For the foregoing reasons, the first assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 18} Brown’s second assignment of error states: THE STATE ENGAGED IN PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT BY FAILING TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE. {¶ 19} Brown contends the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by violating Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when it failed to disclose D.K.’s phone records or the identity of her service provider. {¶ 20} The records issue arose during a status hearing held three months before trial. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Pless
green
1 sentence2024“Absent strict compliance with the requirements of R.C. 2945.05, a trial 3 court lacks jurisdiction to try the defendant without a jury.” State v. Pless, 74 Ohio St.3d 333 (1996), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶8} The trial court conducted a status hearing on June 2, 2023. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Shaffer v. Heitner
green
2 sentences2018Shaffer v. Heitner , 433 U.S. 186 , 201, 97 S.Ct. 2569 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). {¶ 97} However, the exception does not apply when, as here, the child, C.J., Jr. is not present in the forum. 2018Shaffer v. Heitner , 433 U.S. 186 , 201, 97 S.Ct. 2569 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). {¶ 97} However, the exception does not apply when, as here, the child, C.J., Jr. is not present in the forum. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Nolan (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2018During a status hearing on the petition in 2014, the parties discussed State v. Nolan, 141 Ohio St.3d 454 , 2014-Ohio-4800 , in which the Supreme Court of Ohio held that attempted felony murder is not a cognizable crime in Ohio. 2018During a status hearing on the petition in 2014, the parties discussed State v. Nolan, 141 Ohio St.3d 454 , 2014-Ohio-4800 , in which the Supreme Court of Ohio held that attempted felony murder is not a cognizable crime in Ohio. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Perry
neutral
1 sentence2013No. 11 MA 129, 2012-Ohio-5574 , the trial court set a status hearing for which Perry failed to appear. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Milligan v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences2012This court did not hold in Milligan , contrary to the court of appeals’ assertion, that the common pleas court has jurisdiction over an action against a utility so long as the action existed at common law. {¶ 24} The court of appeals relied on the following language from Milligan, 56 Ohio St.2d at 195 , 383 N.E.2d 575 , to support its holding: “Whereas the right of privacy has been recognized as a legal right existing at common law in this state, * * * it follows that the Court of Common Pleas has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2305.01 to hear a complaint alleging a violation of 2012This court did not hold in Milligan , contrary to the court of appeals’ assertion, that the common pleas court has jurisdiction over an action against a utility so long as the action existed at common law. {¶ 24} The court of appeals relied on the following language from Milligan, 56 Ohio St.2d at 195 , 383 N.E.2d 575 , to support its holding: “Whereas the right of privacy has been recognized as a legal right existing at common law in this state, * * * it follows that the Court of Common Pleas has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2305.01 to hear a complaint alleging a violation of | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Ellison
green
1 sentence2010Id. at ¶ 18, 22. {¶ 27} In Dayton Bar Assn. v. Ellison, 118 Ohio St.3d 128 , 2008-Ohio-1808 , 886 N.E.2d 836 , the attorney’s negligence resulted in the dismissal of the client’s employment-discrimination claim, and when the client contacted the attorney to check on the status of her claim, the attorney falsely stated that she did not know anything and failed to inform the client of the court’s action until more than six months after the claim had been dismissed. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Prim
green
2 sentences2007State v. Prim (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 142 , 157 , 730 N.E.2d 455 ; R.C. 2945.72 (B). 2007State v. Prim (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 142 , 157 , 730 N.E.2d 455 ; R.C. 2945.72 (B). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Rich, Unpublished Decision (1-29-2007)
green
1 sentence2007Specifically, appellant argues that the trial court's "after-the-fact" re-sentencing hearing was violative of appellant's due process rights, protection against double jeopardy, and protection against ex-post facto laws under the Ohio and United States Constitutions. {¶ 25} For the reasons set forth in this Court's decision in State v Rich , Stark App. No. 2006CA00171, 2007-Ohio-362 we overrule appellant's due process, ex-post *Page 7 facto and double jeopardy arguments. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Witt v. Akron Express, Inc., Unpublished Decision (1-14-2004)
neutral
1 sentence2004Witt v. Akron Express, Inc., Gallia App. No. 03CA10, 2004-Ohio-251 , 2004 WL 102780 (“Witt III”). {¶ 10} On remand, the trial court conducted a status hearing, which, upon the request of counsel for the parties, it converted into a hearing upon the Witts’ motion for a new trial. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Thomas v. Conrad
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 478 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.