20 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2026 2 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. Xiegreen2 sentences2014However, upon closer examination the weight of these factors is mitigated by the circumstances. {¶ 18} Under the more lenient pre-sentence standard, a defendant must show “there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea.” Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 at paragraph one of the syllabus. 2014However, upon closer examination the weight of these factors is mitigated by the circumstances. {¶ 18} Under the more lenient pre-sentence standard, a defendant must show “there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea.” Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 at paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2 |
Barber v. Currygreen2 sentences1998Barber v. Curry (1974), 40 Ohio App.2d 346 , 69 O.O.2d 312 , 319 N.E.2d 367 , In the instant case, the sample was taken using betadine, a nonvolatile antiseptic, with a sterile dry needle pulled into a sealed vacutainer with- a solid anticoagulant in compliance with the ODH standards. 1998Barber v. Curry (1974), 40 Ohio App.2d 346 , 69 O.O.2d 312 , 319 N.E.2d 367 , In the instant case, the sample was taken using betadine, a nonvolatile antiseptic, with a sterile dry needle pulled into a sealed vacutainer with- a solid anticoagulant in compliance with the ODH standards. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2022Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42 (“Nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.”). {¶92} Lane’s ninth assignment of error is overruled. -46- Case No. 1-21-33 {¶93} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2017See State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2008-Ohio-2 , 880 N.E.2d 31 , ¶ 402 (holding defendant’s childhood abuse “entitled to weight” but noting that “there was no evidence of any significant connection between [the defendant’s] childhood abuse and [the victim’s] murder”). {¶ 71} Next, Roberts contends that the sentencing opinion improperly “minimized or de-valued” the mitigating weight of her auto accidents (which took place in 1963, 1983, and 1999) and her resulting physical injuries, depression, and suicide attempt. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hoffmeyer, 23712 (5-14-2008)green1 sentence2012No. 23712, 2008-Ohio-2311, ¶ 17 (reviewing a weight challenge and opining that “speculation about what could have possibly happened was not evidence that it did happen”). | 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. Hayes
green
2 sentences2019Summit No. 26388, 2013-Ohio-2429, ¶ 9 . 2018Summit No. 26388, 2013-Ohio-2429, ¶ 9 . | 6 | 2017–2019 |
State v. Dress
green
2 sentences1998The court stated: “[T]he fact that the hospital lab technician, though otherwise qualified, did not possess a testing permit issued by the Director of Health, goes only to the weight of the test not admissibility.” Id. at 263 , 10 OBR at 378, 461 N.E.2d at 1319 . 1998The court stated: “[T]he fact that the hospital lab technician, though otherwise qualified, did not possess a testing permit issued by the Director of Health, goes only to the weight of the test not admissibility.” Id. at 263 , 10 OBR at 378, 461 N.E.2d at 1319 . | 2 | 1997–1998 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2026Id. {¶21} Here, P.H. testified that she and Branch were in a romantic relationship for at least one year and lived together on and off for approximately six months in the same boarding-house room. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Roberts (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2020“Whether mitigating factors help to explain the murder is obviously relevant to the weight of those factors and may be considered by the sentencer in assigning weight to them.” State v. Roberts, 150 Ohio St.3d 47 , 2017- Ohio-2998, 78 N.E.3d 851, ¶ 70 . {¶ 174} Madison’s 17th proposition of law is overruled. 2020“Whether mitigating factors help to explain the murder is obviously relevant to the weight of those factors and may be considered by the sentencer in assigning weight to them.” State v. Roberts, 150 Ohio St.3d 47 , 2017- Ohio-2998, 78 N.E.3d 851, ¶ 70 . {¶ 174} Madison’s 17th proposition of law is overruled. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2016C-120570, C-120751, 2013-Ohio-4775, ¶ 33 . {¶10} Whether the statutes at issue require the State to prove the weight of the drug involved based on a purity standard or a total weight standard is a matter of statutory interpretation. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Wilson
neutral
1 sentence2012No. 25100, 2011-Ohio-4072, ¶ 21 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Burns v. Prudential Securities, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011No. 1-10-07, 2010-Ohio-4173, ¶30 , citing Burns v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 167 Ohio App.3d 809 , 2006-Ohio-3550 , 857 N.E.2d 621, ¶41 . {¶ 33} AT&T first complains of the following instructions: {¶ 34} “If plaintiff’s weight aggravated and made the original work related injury worse over the years, the employer assumes that risk and is responsible for all conditions which ultimately result from the original work related injury to its employees.” {¶ 35} AT&T argues that by giving this weight instruction, “the trial court effectively bestowed upon AT&T the burden of proving that [Halenar’s] weigh 2011No. 1-10-07, 2010-Ohio-4173, ¶30 , citing Burns v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 167 Ohio App.3d 809 , 2006-Ohio-3550 , 857 N.E.2d 621, ¶41 . {¶ 33} AT&T first complains of the following instructions: {¶ 34} “If plaintiff’s weight aggravated and made the original work related injury worse over the years, the employer assumes that risk and is responsible for all conditions which ultimately result from the original work related injury to its employees.” {¶ 35} AT&T argues that by giving this weight instruction, “the trial court effectively bestowed upon AT&T the burden of proving that [Halenar’s] weigh | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Schnipke v. Safe-Turf Installation Group, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2011No. 1-10-07, 2010-Ohio-4173, ¶30 , citing Burns v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 167 Ohio App.3d 809 , 2006-Ohio-3550 , 857 N.E.2d 621, ¶41 . {¶ 33} AT&T first complains of the following instructions: {¶ 34} “If plaintiff’s weight aggravated and made the original work related injury worse over the years, the employer assumes that risk and is responsible for all conditions which ultimately result from the original work related injury to its employees.” {¶ 35} AT&T argues that by giving this weight instruction, “the trial court effectively bestowed upon AT&T the burden of proving that [Halenar’s] weigh | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Thompkins
red
1 sentence1999Even giving the jury's determinations of credibility reduced deference from that appropriate in, for example, a sufficiency of the weight challenge, there remains in the record enough evidence of Ginyard's guilt to preclude a finding that "the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction[s] must be reversed and a new trial ordered." Thompkins , supra . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.