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 1990–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gaines & Stern Co. v. Schwarzwald, Robiner, Wolf & Rock, Co.green2 sentences2021“If ‘the movant does not provide operative facts which demonstrate that relief is warranted, the trial court may deny the motion without holding a hearing.’” Hoffman at ¶ 9 , quoting Gaines & Stern Co., L.P.A. v. Schwarzwald, Robiner, Wolf & Rock Co., L.P.A., 70 Ohio App.3d 643, 646 (8th Dist.1990). {¶12} Ms. Ford filed her motion for relief from judgment within ten days of the trial court’s ruling and moved for relief pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(1). 2019If “the movant does not provide operative facts which demonstrate that relief is warranted, the trial 4 court may deny the motion without holding a hearing.” Gaines & Stern Co., L.P.A. v. Schwarzwald, Robiner, Wolf & Rock Co., L.P.A., 70 Ohio App.3d 643, 646 (8th Dist.1990). | 3 | 8 |
State v. Tringelofgreen1 sentence2024"To prove a manifest injustice, the defendant must show a 'fundamental flaw in the proceedings that results in a miscarriage of justice or is inconsistent with the demands of due process.'" State v. Tringelof, 2017-Ohio-7657, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Hobbs, 2013-Ohio-3089, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Owensgreen1 sentence2024The trial court denied the motion without holding a hearing. {¶ 5} Appellant appealed, raising the following as his sole assignment of error: {¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED APPELLANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA. {¶ 7} Pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1, "[a] motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before a sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea." "A defendant who seeks to withdraw a guilty plea post-sentence has the burden of establ | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hobbsgreen1 sentence2024"To prove a manifest injustice, the defendant must show a 'fundamental flaw in the proceedings that results in a miscarriage of justice or is inconsistent with the demands of due process.'" State v. Tringelof, 2017-Ohio-7657, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Hobbs, 2013-Ohio-3089, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bates & Springer, Inc. v. Stallworth
green
2 sentences2003Bates Springer, Inc. v. Stallworth (1978), 56 Ohio App.2d 223 , 228 ; Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 18 , 19 . {¶ 40} This court has considered the entire record of these proceedings and, upon consideration thereof and the law, finds that appellant did not provide allegations of operative facts demonstrating that relief was warranted. 2001Bates Springer, Inc. v. Stallworth (1978), 56 Ohio App.2d 223 , 228 . | 3 | 1990–2003 |
Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc. , 76 Ohio St.3d 18 , 19 , 1996-Ohio-430 ; McBroom v. McBroom , 6th Dist. 2003Bates Springer, Inc. v. Stallworth (1978), 56 Ohio App.2d 223 , 228 ; Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 18 , 19 . {¶ 40} This court has considered the entire record of these proceedings and, upon consideration thereof and the law, finds that appellant did not provide allegations of operative facts demonstrating that relief was warranted. | 2 | 2003–2008 |
Miller v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (4-21-2004)
green
1 sentence2021(Citations omitted.) Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Specifically, Appellants refer to their reliance on statements made by a representative of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to the effect “that they could pursue foreclosure prevention options outside of court for up to [one] year before they would face a foreclosure sale.” Appellants’ Br. 11. {¶ 14} To prevail on a motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), the moving parties must demonstrate: first, that they have “a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted”; second, that they are “entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B) 2018Specifically, Appellants refer to their reliance on statements made by a representative of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to the effect “that they could pursue foreclosure prevention options outside of court for up to [one] year before they would face a foreclosure sale.” Appellants’ Br. 11. {¶ 14} To prevail on a motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), the moving parties must demonstrate: first, that they have “a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted”; second, that they are “entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B) | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Kemp
green
1 sentence2014Clark No. 2014 CA 32, 2014-Ohio-4607, at ¶ 6 , citing State v. Blatnik, 17 Ohio App.3d 201, 202 , 478 N.E.2d 1016 (6th Dist.1984). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Blatnik
green
2 sentences2014Clark No. 2014 CA 32, 2014-Ohio-4607, at ¶ 6 , citing State v. Blatnik, 17 Ohio App.3d 201, 202 , 478 N.E.2d 1016 (6th Dist.1984). 2014Clark No. 2014 CA 32, 2014-Ohio-4607, at ¶ 6 , citing State v. Blatnik, 17 Ohio App.3d 201, 202 , 478 N.E.2d 1016 (6th Dist.1984). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc. , 76 Ohio St.3d 18 , 19 , 1996-Ohio-430 ; McBroom v. McBroom , 6th Dist. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Xie
green
1 sentence2006Specifically, the motion stated: {¶ 66} "Now comes the defendant, Larry Greenleaf, pro se to make motion to withdraw plea made in case number 2004 CR 00262, pursuant to Criminal Rule 32.1, to wit: a plea of guilty or no contest may be made before sentence is imposed." (sic.) {¶ 67} The trial court overruled this motion without holding a hearing. {¶ 68} It is well settled that "a trial court must conduct a hearing to determine whether there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea." State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 527 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In re Davis
green
1 sentence2001State v. Hall (March 20, 2000), Mahoning App. No. 99 CA 190, unreported, citing In re Davis (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 520 , 522 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Salem v. Salem
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.