130 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2026 35 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. Robertsgreen2 sentences2022“In Franks * * *, the United States Supreme Court squarely addressed the issue of when a defendant, under the Fourth Amendment, is entitled to a hearing to challenge the veracity of the facts set forth in the warrant affidavit after the warrant has been issued and executed.” State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d 170, 177 (1980). 2021“In Franks v. Delaware * * *, the United States Supreme Court squarely addressed the issue of when a defendant, under the Fourth Amendment, is entitled to a hearing to challenge the veracity of the facts set forth in the warrant affidavit after the warrant has been issued and executed.” State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d 170, 177 , 405 N.E.2d 247 (1980). | 3 | 9 |
State v. Kappergreen2 sentences2025“A petitioner is not entitled to a hearing if his claim for relief is belied by the record and is unsupported by any operative facts other than Defendant's own self-serving affidavit or statements in his petition, which alone are legally insufficient to rebut the record on review.” State v. Coleman, 2005-Ohio-3874, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 36, 38 (1983), and State v. Vanderpool, 1999 WL 64238 (2d Dist. 2025“A petitioner is not entitled to a hearing if his claim for relief is belied by the record and is unsupported by any operative facts other than Defendant's own self- serving affidavit or statements in his petition, which are legally insufficient to rebut the record on review.” Gapen, 2005-Ohio-441, at ¶ 21 (2d Dist.), citing Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d at 38 , and Vanderpool, 1999 WL 64238 (2d Dist. | 2 | 8 |
State v. Meyergreen2 sentences2009Indeed, as stated by the Second Appellate District: {¶ 16} “Although the statute states that the hearing must be held ‘at the time of sentencing,’ Ohio’s courts have read R.C. 2947.14 in its entirety and concluded that the hearing requirement ‘does not arise until the trial court decides to incarcerate the offender for failure to pay.’ ” State v. Perkins, 154 Ohio App.3d 631 , 2003-Ohio-5092 , 798 N.E.2d 646, ¶ 26 , quoting State v. Meyer (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 373, 375 , 706 N.E.2d 378 ; State v. Cochran (June 5, 1998), 2d Dist. 2009Indeed, as stated by the Second Appellate District: {¶ 16} “Although the statute states that the hearing must be held ‘at the time of sentencing,’ Ohio’s courts have read R.C. 2947.14 in its entirety and concluded that the hearing requirement ‘does not arise until the trial court decides to incarcerate the offender for failure to pay.’ ” State v. Perkins, 154 Ohio App.3d 631 , 2003-Ohio-5092 , 798 N.E.2d 646, ¶ 26 , quoting State v. Meyer (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 373, 375 , 706 N.E.2d 378 ; State v. Cochran (June 5, 1998), 2d Dist. | 2 | 8 |
State v. Coleman, Unpublished Decision (7-29-2005)green2 sentences2025“A petitioner is not entitled to a hearing if his claim for relief is belied by the record and is unsupported by any operative facts other than Defendant's own self-serving affidavit or statements in his petition, which alone are legally insufficient to rebut the record on review.” State v. Coleman, 2005-Ohio-3874, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 36, 38 (1983), and State v. Vanderpool, 1999 WL 64238 (2d Dist. 2019Moreover, “[a] petitioner is not entitled to a hearing if his claim for relief is belied by the record and is unsupported by any operative facts other than Defendant’s own self-serving affidavit or statements in his petition, which alone are legally insufficient to rebut the record on review.” (Citations omitted.) Id. | 2 | 4 |
State v. McClaingreen2 sentences2020Lucas No. L-07-1379, 2009-Ohio-3493 , ¶ 21, quoting State v. OK Sun Bean, 13 Ohio App.3d 69, 71 , 468 N.E.2d 146 6th Dist.1983) (additional citation omitted.); see also State v. McClain, 2015-Ohio-3690 , 41 N.E.3d 871 , ¶ 7 (2d Dist.). 2020Lucas No. L-07-1379, 2009-Ohio-3493 , ¶ 21, quoting State v. OK Sun Bean, 13 Ohio App.3d 69, 71 , 468 N.E.2d 146 6th Dist.1983) (additional citation omitted.); see also State v. McClain, 2015-Ohio-3690 , 41 N.E.3d 871 , ¶ 7 (2d Dist.). | 2 | 2 |
Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Board v. Central Cadillac Co.green2 sentences2016See Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd. v. Central Cadillac Co., 14 Ohio St.3d 64, 67 , 471 N.E.2d 488, 492 (1984). 2016See Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd. v. Central Cadillac Co., 14 Ohio St.3d 64, 67 , 471 N.E.2d 488, 492 (1984). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Murnahanred2 sentences2007Powell , 90 Ohio App.3d at 267 , 629 N.E.2d at 17 ; see, also, Murnahan , 63 Ohio St.3d at 63 , 584 N.E.2d at 1207 ; State v. Williams (Nov. 24, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 64151, unreported, slip op. 2007Powell , 90 Ohio App.3d at 267 , 629 N.E.2d at 17 ; see, also, Murnahan , 63 Ohio St.3d at 63 , 584 N.E.2d at 1207 ; State v. Williams (Nov. 24, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 64151, unreported, slip op. | 2 | 2 |
Caddell v. Bureau of Workers' Compensationgreen2 sentences1999See Caddell v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 300, 302 , 643 N.E.2d 1075, 1076 (a deprivation of procedural due process does not occur when a claimant is initially deprived of a hearing if a hearing is subsequently provided to the claimant). 1999See Caddell v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 300, 302 , 643 N.E.2d 1075, 1076 (a deprivation of procedural due process does not occur when a claimant is initially deprived of a hearing if a hearing is subsequently provided to the claimant). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Szefcykgreen2 sentences2025Atkinson at ¶ 12, citing State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996). 2025Feb. 12, 1999). {¶ 22} “Res judicata is applicable in all postconviction relief proceedings.” State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 95 (1996). | 1 | 10 |
State v. Perrygreen2 sentences2008Perry , supra at paragraph nine of the syllabus. 2007State v. Szefcyk (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 93 , syllabus, approving and following State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175 , paragraph nine of the syllabus. | 1 | 4 |
Williams v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2005State v. Perkins (2003), 154 Ohio App.3d 631 , 635 , citing Williams v. Illinois (1970), 399 U.S. 235 , 90 S.Ct. 2018 ; and Tate v. Short (1971), 401 U.S. 395 , 91 S.Ct. 668 . 2005State v. Perkins (2003), 154 Ohio App.3d 631 , 635 , citing Williams v. Illinois (1970), 399 U.S. 235 , 90 S.Ct. 2018 ; and Tate v. Short (1971), 401 U.S. 395 , 91 S.Ct. 668 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2014SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-3707 THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. JACKSON, APPELLANT. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Jackson, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3707 .] Criminal law—Judicial bias—Trial court’s conducting of a hearing when defense counsel did not raise claim of intellectual disability—Waiver of jury trial—Jurisdiction and venue when crimes are committed in several counties—Death penalty upheld. 2014SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-3707 THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. JACKSON, APPELLANT. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Jackson, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3707 .] Criminal law—Judicial bias—Trial court’s conducting of a hearing when defense counsel did not raise claim of intellectual disability—Waiver of jury trial—Jurisdiction and venue when crimes are committed in several counties—Death penalty upheld. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Cookgreen2 sentences2008"The statute does not require the court to list the criteria, but only to `consider all relevant factors, including' the criteria in R.C. 2950.09 (B)[3] in making [its] findings." State v. Cook , 83 Ohio St.3d 404 , 426 , 1998-Ohio-291 , quoting R.C. 2950.09 (B)(3). {¶ 44} Finally, R.C. 2950.09 (B)(4) requires the court to review all testimony and evidence presented at the hearing and the factors listed above and determine by clear and convincing evidence whether the offender is a sexual predator. 1999See State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404 , 700 N.E.2d 570 ; R.C. 2950.01 et seq. | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Barnesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Snyder, Unpublished Decision (8-13-2004)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Xiegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gapen, Unpublished Decision (1-31-2005)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gaddygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lillibridge v. Picagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Harnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Adoption of Holcombgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Stricklandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sandersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| A.C. v. V.G.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ridenour v. Wilkinson, 07ap-200 (11-8-2007)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hudsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Phillipsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bidinostgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Postagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Franks v. Delaware
green
2 sentences2006The warrant affidavits, however, stated that " On or about 2/20/03 the confidential source contained in this affidavit contacted this affiant about the narcotics trafficking being conducted from 2840 Nebraska." {¶ 17} In State v. Roberts (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 170 , 177-178 , the Ohio Supreme Court set forth the circumstances under which a defendant is entitled to a hearing to challenge the veracity of the facts set forth in a warrant affidavit as follows: {¶ 18} "In Franks v. Delaware (1978), 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 , the United States Supreme Court squarely addressed the 2006The warrant affidavits, however, stated that " On or about 2/20/03 the confidential source contained in this affidavit contacted this affiant about the narcotics trafficking being conducted from 2840 Nebraska." {¶ 17} In State v. Roberts (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 170 , 177-178 , the Ohio Supreme Court set forth the circumstances under which a defendant is entitled to a hearing to challenge the veracity of the facts set forth in a warrant affidavit as follows: {¶ 18} "In Franks v. Delaware (1978), 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 , the United States Supreme Court squarely addressed the | 4 | 1980–2009 |
State v. Perkins
green
2 sentences2009Indeed, as stated by the Second Appellate District: {¶ 16} “Although the statute states that the hearing must be held ‘at the time of sentencing,’ Ohio’s courts have read R.C. 2947.14 in its entirety and concluded that the hearing requirement ‘does not arise until the trial court decides to incarcerate the offender for failure to pay.’ ” State v. Perkins, 154 Ohio App.3d 631 , 2003-Ohio-5092 , 798 N.E.2d 646, ¶ 26 , quoting State v. Meyer (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 373, 375 , 706 N.E.2d 378 ; State v. Cochran (June 5, 1998), 2d Dist. 2009Indeed, as stated by the Second Appellate District: {¶ 16} “Although the statute states that the hearing must be held ‘at the time of sentencing,’ Ohio’s courts have read R.C. 2947.14 in its entirety and concluded that the hearing requirement ‘does not arise until the trial court decides to incarcerate the offender for failure to pay.’ ” State v. Perkins, 154 Ohio App.3d 631 , 2003-Ohio-5092 , 798 N.E.2d 646, ¶ 26 , quoting State v. Meyer (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 373, 375 , 706 N.E.2d 378 ; State v. Cochran (June 5, 1998), 2d Dist. | 4 | 2005–2009 |
Drope v. Missouri
green
2 sentences2023Cuyahoga No. 92237, 2010-Ohio-898 , ¶ 13, quoting State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 , 502 N.E.2d 1016 (1986), citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 , 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). 2023Cuyahoga No. 92237, 2010-Ohio-898 , ¶ 13, quoting State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 , 502 N.E.2d 1016 (1986), citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 , 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). | 3 | 2017–2023 |
Tate v. Short
green
2 sentences2005State v. Perkins (2003), 154 Ohio App.3d 631 , 635 , citing Williams v. Illinois (1970), 399 U.S. 235 , 90 S.Ct. 2018 ; and Tate v. Short (1971), 401 U.S. 395 , 91 S.Ct. 668 . 2005State v. Perkins (2003), 154 Ohio App.3d 631 , 635 , citing Williams v. Illinois (1970), 399 U.S. 235 , 90 S.Ct. 2018 ; and Tate v. Short (1971), 401 U.S. 395 , 91 S.Ct. 668 . | 3 | 2003–2005 |
State v. Gordon
neutral
2 sentences2026State v. Gordon, 2024-Ohio-530 (10th Dist.). 2025State v. Gordon, 2024-Ohio-530 (10th Dist.). | 2 | 2025–2026 |
State v. Szefcyk
green
2 sentences2025State v. Szefcyk, 1996-Ohio-337 . 2011State v. Szefcyk (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 93 , 1996-Ohio-337 , 671 N.E.2d 233 . | 2 | 2011–2025 |
State v. Rose
green
2 sentences2024Belmont No. 22 BE 0004, 2022-Ohio-4756 , ¶ 67 (“Ohio’s indefinite sentencing structure does not violate the doctrine of the separation of powers, nor does it violate [the] Appellant’s constitutional rights to due process of law or a trial by jury.”) We have already found the Reagan Tokes Law “is constitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” Rose, supra, at ¶ 78 . {¶10} Appellant is concerned that the hearing requirement in R.C. 2967.271 is too vague and fails to provide a minimum of due process. 2023Belmont No. 22 BE 0004, 2022-Ohio-4756 , ¶ 67 (“Ohio’s indefinite sentencing structure does not violate the doctrine of the separation of powers, nor does it violate [the] Appellant’s constitutional rights to due process of law or a trial by jury.”) We have already found the Reagan Tokes Law “is constitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” Rose, supra, at ¶ 78 . {¶13} Appellant is concerned that the hearing requirement in R.C. 2967.271 is too vague and fails to provide a minimum of due process. | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Armstrong v. Manzo
green
2 sentences2024However “(t)he fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 , 96 S.Ct. 893 (1976), quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). 2024However “(t)he fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 , 96 S.Ct. 893 (1976), quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2024However “(t)he fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 , 96 S.Ct. 893 (1976), quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). 2024However “(t)he fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 , 96 S.Ct. 893 (1976), quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). | 2 | 2023–2024 |
State v. Bock
green
2 sentences2023Cuyahoga No. 92237, 2010-Ohio-898 , ¶ 13, quoting State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 , 502 N.E.2d 1016 (1986), citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 , 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). 2022Cuyahoga No. 92237, 2010-Ohio-898 , ¶ 13, quoting State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 , 502 N.E.2d 1016 (1986), citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 , 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Hanscel v. Watters
green
2 sentences2023Cuyahoga No. 92237, 2010-Ohio-898 , ¶ 13, quoting State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 , 502 N.E.2d 1016 (1986), citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 , 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). 2022Cuyahoga No. 92237, 2010-Ohio-898 , ¶ 13, quoting State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 , 502 N.E.2d 1016 (1986), citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 , 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). | 2 | 2022–2023 |
State v. OK Sun Bean
green
2 sentences2020Lucas No. L-07-1379, 2009-Ohio-3493 , ¶ 21, quoting State v. OK Sun Bean, 13 Ohio App.3d 69, 71 , 468 N.E.2d 146 6th Dist.1983) (additional citation omitted.); see also State v. McClain, 2015-Ohio-3690 , 41 N.E.3d 871 , ¶ 7 (2d Dist.). 2020Lucas No. L-07-1379, 2009-Ohio-3493 , ¶ 21, quoting State v. OK Sun Bean, 13 Ohio App.3d 69, 71 , 468 N.E.2d 146 6th Dist.1983) (additional citation omitted.); see also State v. McClain, 2015-Ohio-3690 , 41 N.E.3d 871 , ¶ 7 (2d Dist.). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2010Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d at 523 . {¶18} At the hearing on defense counsel’s motion to withdraw, the trial court did attempt to make further inquiry into the reasons behind the motion, but Wilson did not take the opportunity to elaborate. 2005State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 , 542 , 2001-Ohio-112 . {¶ 31} At a hearing on the privilege issue, Croswell discussed his decision not to hire Gray. | 2 | 2005–2010 |
State v. Combs
green
2 sentences2000State v. Combs (1994), 100 Ohio App.3d 90 . 1999Combs , supra at 98, 652 N.E.2d at 210 . | 2 | 1999–2000 |
State v. Rubenstein
green
2 sentences2000State v. Rubenstein (1987), 40 Ohio App.3d 57 . 1998State v. Britton (Oct. 6, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 66177, unreported, citing State v. Rubenstein (1987), 40 Ohio App.3d 57 , 61 . | 2 | 1998–2000 |
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
red
2 sentences1999Appellant complains that the court failed to hold two separate community control violation hearings in accord with the decision in Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973), 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 . 1999Appellant complains that the court failed to hold two separate community control violation hearings in accord with the decision in Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973), 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 . | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Thomas v. Mills
green
1 sentence2026We held that the prisoner’s Article I, Section 10 right to counsel had not been violated because “the word ‘trial’ in criminal procedure means the proceedings in open court after the pleadings are finished and the prosecution is otherwise ready, down to and including the rendition of the verdict; and the term ‘trial’ does not extend to such preliminary steps as the arraignment and giving of the pleas, nor does it comprehend a hearing in error.” Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Findler green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Campbell, Unpublished Decision (11-25-2003) green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Montejo v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Michigan v. Harvey green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Bembry (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Wolf v. Colorado red | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Mapp v. Ohio green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Robinette green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Barnes green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Castagnola green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Roberts v. Kauffman 4 Dayton, Ltd. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Anders v. California green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State ex rel. Webb v. Board of Education of Bryan City School District green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Ibrahim green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Sekic green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Lawson green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Hamilton green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Potts green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| The State Ex Rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, Judge green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Ramsey neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Pate v. Robinson green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In re Estate of Centorbi green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In re M.R. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.