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.
19 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1920–2026 7 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. Beavergreen2 sentences2024State v. Beaver, 131 Ohio App.3d 458, 461 , 722 N.E.2d 1046 (11th Dist.1998) (the trial court should have summarily dismissed appellant's untimely petition without addressing the merits). {¶17} If a postconviction petition is filed beyond the time limitation or the petition is a second or successive petition for postconviction relief, R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) precludes the court from entertaining the petition unless: (1) the petitioner shows that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which his claim for relief is Case No. 23 BE 0049 –6– based, or (2) after the time period e 2024State v. Beaver, 131 Ohio App.3d 458, 461 , 722 N.E.2d 1046 (11th Dist.1998) (the trial court should have summarily dismissed appellant's untimely petition without addressing the merits). {¶17} If a postconviction petition is filed beyond the time limitation or the petition is a second or successive petition for postconviction relief, R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) precludes the court from entertaining the petition unless: (1) the petitioner shows that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which his claim for relief is Case No. 23 BE 0049 –6– based, or (2) after the time period e | 3 | 13 |
Rammelsberg v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence1920See Rammelsburg v. Mitchell, 29 Ohio St. 22 . | 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. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2026State v. Apanovitch, 2018-Ohio-4744, ¶ 36 ; State v. Parker, 2019-Ohio- 3848, ¶ 19. {¶23} Under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), a court may consider an untimely petition only if the petitioner demonstrates both: (a) that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which the claim relies, or that the United States Supreme Court has recognized a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to his situation; and (b) by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the alleged constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty. {¶24} A petitioner’s fail | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Calhoun
green
2 sentences2017State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 282-283 , 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999). 2017State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 282-283 , 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences2012See R.C. 2953.23 (A)(1)(a) (court may not entertain an untimely petition unless the petitioner shows he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which the claim is based or the United States Supreme Court recognized a new right and he shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable fact- finder would have found him guilty); State v. Johnson, 144 Ohio App.3d 222, 226 , 759 N.E. 2d 889 (7th Dist.2001). 2012See R.C. 2953.23 (A)(1)(a) (court may not entertain an untimely petition unless the petitioner shows he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which the claim is based or the United States Supreme Court recognized a new right and he shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable fact- finder would have found him guilty); State v. Johnson, 144 Ohio App.3d 222, 226 , 759 N.E. 2d 889 (7th Dist.2001). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2002State v. Smith (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Mendelson v. Mendelson
green
1 sentence1967Where it is claimed by either party that the law of another state or of the United States applies to the exclusion of the law of the forum, the facts upon which such claim is based must be pleaded.” The first paragraph of the syllabus of Mendelson v. Mendelson, 123 Ohio St. 11 , is as follows: “In the absence of pleading and proof to the contrary the presumption obtains that the law of the place where a contract was executed is the same as the law where enforcement thereof is sought.” See 9 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 672, Conflict of Laws, Section 3.5. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.