heavy presumption in Ohio

17 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2022 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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Maysgreen ohioctapp · 2008 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2017–2022 2 sentences 2022“The heavy standard is meant to avoid the possibility of a defendant pleading guilty to test the weight of potential punishment and later withdrawing the plea if the sentence was unexpectedly severe.” State v. Mays, 174 Ohio App.3d 681 , 2008-Ohio-128 , 884 N.E.2d 607, ¶ 4 (8th Dist.). {¶ 17} “[A]n evidentiary hearing is not required on every post-sentence motion to withdraw a plea. 2022“The heavy standard is meant to avoid the possibility of a defendant pleading guilty to test the weight of potential punishment and later withdrawing the plea if the sentence was unexpectedly severe.” State v. Mays, 174 Ohio App.3d 681 , 2008-Ohio-128 , 884 N.E.2d 607, ¶ 4 (8th Dist.). {¶ 17} “[A]n evidentiary hearing is not required on every post-sentence motion to withdraw a plea.	2	2
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivangreen scotus · 1963 · cited in 7 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1982–2021 2 sentences 2021A prior restraint is not unconstitutional per se but bears “ ‘a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’ ” Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558 , 95 S.Ct. 1239 , 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975), quoting Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 , 83 S.Ct. 631 , 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963). {¶35} In Bey v. Rasawehr, 161 Ohio St.39 79, 2020-Ohio-3301, ¶ 27 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated, The fact that expression may now occur in “cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general, Reno v. Am. 2021A prior restraint is not unconstitutional per se but bears “ ‘a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’ ” Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558 , 95 S.Ct. 1239 , 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975), quoting Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 , 83 S.Ct. 631 , 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963). {¶35} In Bey v. Rasawehr, 161 Ohio St.39 79, 2020-Ohio-3301, ¶ 27 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated, The fact that expression may now occur in “cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general, Reno v. Am.	1	7
New York Times Co. v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1971 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1990–2020 2 sentences 2020See also New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 , 91 S.Ct. 2140 , 29 L.Ed.2d 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 822 (1971). 1990In pertinent part it states: “Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or of the press. * * *” (Emphasis added.) Further in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), 403 U.S. 713, 714 , the United States Supreme Court said that any system of prior restraint of expression bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity and the government carries a heavy burden to justify enforcing any system of prior restraint.	1	2
California v. Byersgreen scotus · 1971 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020See also New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 , 91 S.Ct. 2140 , 29 L.Ed.2d 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 822 (1971).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

Case	Cited	Years
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad green scotus · 1975 2 sentences 2021A prior restraint is not unconstitutional per se but bears “ ‘a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’ ” Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558 , 95 S.Ct. 1239 , 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975), quoting Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 , 83 S.Ct. 631 , 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963). {¶35} In Bey v. Rasawehr, 161 Ohio St.39 79, 2020-Ohio-3301, ¶ 27 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated, The fact that expression may now occur in “cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general, Reno v. Am. 2021A prior restraint is not unconstitutional per se but bears “ ‘a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’ ” Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558 , 95 S.Ct. 1239 , 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975), quoting Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 , 83 S.Ct. 631 , 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963). {¶35} In Bey v. Rasawehr, 161 Ohio St.39 79, 2020-Ohio-3301, ¶ 27 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated, The fact that expression may now occur in “cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general, Reno v. Am.	6	1998–2021
Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 2018Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. , 466 U.S. 485 , 508, 104 S.Ct. 1949 , 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) ; State v. Baranski , 173 Ohio App.3d 410 , 2007-Ohio-4072 , 878 N.E.2d 1058 , ¶ 6 (4th Dist.). {¶ 29} "The term prior restraint is used 'to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.' " (Citation omitted.) Seven Hills v. Aryan Nations , 76 Ohio St.3d 304 , 307, 667 N.E.2d 942 (1996). {¶ 30} "Although prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se, there is a heavy presumption agai 2018Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. , 466 U.S. 485 , 508, 104 S.Ct. 1949 , 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) ; State v. Baranski , 173 Ohio App.3d 410 , 2007-Ohio-4072 , 878 N.E.2d 1058 , ¶ 6 (4th Dist.). {¶ 29} "The term prior restraint is used 'to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.' " (Citation omitted.) Seven Hills v. Aryan Nations , 76 Ohio St.3d 304 , 307, 667 N.E.2d 942 (1996). {¶ 30} "Although prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se, there is a heavy presumption agai	2	1998–2018
State v. Caraballo green ohio · 1985 2 sentences 2017Cuyahoga No. 89013, 2007-Ohio- 5329, ¶ 20, fn. 7, citing State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67 , 477 N.E.2d 627 (1985). 2017Cuyahoga No. 89013, 2007-Ohio- 5329, ¶ 20, fn. 7, citing State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67 , 477 N.E.2d 627 (1985).	2	2008–2017
Vance v. Universal Amusement Co. green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 1998Generally, “a prior restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights bears ‘a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’ ” Douglas v. Brownell (C.A.8, 1996), 88 F.3d 1511 , 1521, quoting Vance v. Universal Amusement Co. (1980), 445 U.S. 308, 317 , 100 S.Ct. 1156, 1162 , 63 L.Ed.2d 413, 420 . 1998Generally, “a prior restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights bears ‘a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’ ” Douglas v. Brownell (C.A.8, 1996), 88 F.3d 1511 , 1521, quoting Vance v. Universal Amusement Co. (1980), 445 U.S. 308, 317 , 100 S.Ct. 1156, 1162 , 63 L.Ed.2d 413, 420 .	2	1998–1998
Bey v. Rasawehr (Slip Opinion) green ohio · 2020 1 sentence 2021A prior restraint is not unconstitutional per se but bears “ ‘a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’ ” Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558 , 95 S.Ct. 1239 , 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975), quoting Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 , 83 S.Ct. 631 , 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963). {¶35} In Bey v. Rasawehr, 161 Ohio St.39 79, 2020-Ohio-3301, ¶ 27 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated, The fact that expression may now occur in “cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general, Reno v. Am.	1	2021–2021
City of Seven Hills v. Aryan Nations green ohio · 1996 2 sentences 2018Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. , 466 U.S. 485 , 508, 104 S.Ct. 1949 , 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) ; State v. Baranski , 173 Ohio App.3d 410 , 2007-Ohio-4072 , 878 N.E.2d 1058 , ¶ 6 (4th Dist.). {¶ 29} "The term prior restraint is used 'to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.' " (Citation omitted.) Seven Hills v. Aryan Nations , 76 Ohio St.3d 304 , 307, 667 N.E.2d 942 (1996). {¶ 30} "Although prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se, there is a heavy presumption agai 2018Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. , 466 U.S. 485 , 508, 104 S.Ct. 1949 , 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) ; State v. Baranski , 173 Ohio App.3d 410 , 2007-Ohio-4072 , 878 N.E.2d 1058 , ¶ 6 (4th Dist.). {¶ 29} "The term prior restraint is used 'to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.' " (Citation omitted.) Seven Hills v. Aryan Nations , 76 Ohio St.3d 304 , 307, 667 N.E.2d 942 (1996). {¶ 30} "Although prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se, there is a heavy presumption agai	1	2018–2018
State Ex Rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Henry County Court of Common Pleas green ohio · 2010 2 sentences 2018Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. , 466 U.S. 485 , 508, 104 S.Ct. 1949 , 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) ; State v. Baranski , 173 Ohio App.3d 410 , 2007-Ohio-4072 , 878 N.E.2d 1058 , ¶ 6 (4th Dist.). {¶ 29} "The term prior restraint is used 'to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.' " (Citation omitted.) Seven Hills v. Aryan Nations , 76 Ohio St.3d 304 , 307, 667 N.E.2d 942 (1996). {¶ 30} "Although prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se, there is a heavy presumption agai 2018Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. , 466 U.S. 485 , 508, 104 S.Ct. 1949 , 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) ; State v. Baranski , 173 Ohio App.3d 410 , 2007-Ohio-4072 , 878 N.E.2d 1058 , ¶ 6 (4th Dist.). {¶ 29} "The term prior restraint is used 'to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.' " (Citation omitted.) Seven Hills v. Aryan Nations , 76 Ohio St.3d 304 , 307, 667 N.E.2d 942 (1996). {¶ 30} "Although prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se, there is a heavy presumption agai	1	2018–2018
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2018Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. , 466 U.S. 485 , 508, 104 S.Ct. 1949 , 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) ; State v. Baranski , 173 Ohio App.3d 410 , 2007-Ohio-4072 , 878 N.E.2d 1058 , ¶ 6 (4th Dist.). {¶ 29} "The term prior restraint is used 'to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.' " (Citation omitted.) Seven Hills v. Aryan Nations , 76 Ohio St.3d 304 , 307, 667 N.E.2d 942 (1996). {¶ 30} "Although prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se, there is a heavy presumption agai 2018Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. , 466 U.S. 485 , 508, 104 S.Ct. 1949 , 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) ; State v. Baranski , 173 Ohio App.3d 410 , 2007-Ohio-4072 , 878 N.E.2d 1058 , ¶ 6 (4th Dist.). {¶ 29} "The term prior restraint is used 'to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.' " (Citation omitted.) Seven Hills v. Aryan Nations , 76 Ohio St.3d 304 , 307, 667 N.E.2d 942 (1996). {¶ 30} "Although prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se, there is a heavy presumption agai	1	2018–2018
State v. Baranski green ohioctapp · 2007 2 sentences 2018Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. , 466 U.S. 485 , 508, 104 S.Ct. 1949 , 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) ; State v. Baranski , 173 Ohio App.3d 410 , 2007-Ohio-4072 , 878 N.E.2d 1058 , ¶ 6 (4th Dist.). {¶ 29} "The term prior restraint is used 'to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.' " (Citation omitted.) Seven Hills v. Aryan Nations , 76 Ohio St.3d 304 , 307, 667 N.E.2d 942 (1996). {¶ 30} "Although prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se, there is a heavy presumption agai 2018Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. , 466 U.S. 485 , 508, 104 S.Ct. 1949 , 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) ; State v. Baranski , 173 Ohio App.3d 410 , 2007-Ohio-4072 , 878 N.E.2d 1058 , ¶ 6 (4th Dist.). {¶ 29} "The term prior restraint is used 'to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.' " (Citation omitted.) Seven Hills v. Aryan Nations , 76 Ohio St.3d 304 , 307, 667 N.E.2d 942 (1996). {¶ 30} "Although prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se, there is a heavy presumption agai	1	2018–2018
State v. Makupson, Unpublished Decision (10-4-2007) green ohioctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2008State v. Makupson, Cuyahoga App. No. 89013, 2007-Ohio-5329 , 2007 WL 2894231 , at ¶ 20, fn. 7, citing State v. Caraballo (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67 , 17 OBR 132, 477 N.E.2d 627 . {¶ 5} A motion to withdraw a guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1 is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will not interfere with that decision absent an abuse of discretion.	1	2008–2008
Nightclubs, Inc.,plaintiff-Appellant v. City of Paducah green ca6 · 2000 1 sentence 2005Nightclubs, Inc. v. City of Paducah, Kentucky (C.A.6, 2000), 202 F.3d 884 , 889 .	1	2005–2005
FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas green scotus · 1990 2 sentences 2000Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975), 420 U.S. 546, 558 , 95 S.Ct. 1239, 1246 , 43 L.Ed.2d 448, 458-459 ; FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas (1990), 493 U.S. 215, 227 , 110 S.Ct. 596, 604 , 107 L.Ed.2d 603, 619 . 2000Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975), 420 U.S. 546, 558 , 95 S.Ct. 1239, 1246 , 43 L.Ed.2d 448, 458-459 ; FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas (1990), 493 U.S. 215, 227 , 110 S.Ct. 596, 604 , 107 L.Ed.2d 603, 619 .	1	2000–2000
Douglas v. Brownell green ca8 · 1996 1 sentence 1998Generally, “a prior restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights bears ‘a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’ ” Douglas v. Brownell (C.A.8, 1996), 88 F.3d 1511 , 1521, quoting Vance v. Universal Amusement Co. (1980), 445 U.S. 308, 317 , 100 S.Ct. 1156, 1162 , 63 L.Ed.2d 413, 420 .	1	1998–1998
Moishe Meyer Rosen v. The Port of Portland James Hawley and Steven C. Laxton green ca9 · 1981 1 sentence 1998“The presumption is heavier against ‘prior restraints,’ and the protection therefore greater, because ‘prior restraints on speech and publications are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.’ ” Rosen, 641 F.2d at 1247 , quoting Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart (1976), 427 U.S. 539, 559 , 96 S.Ct. 2791, 2802 , 49 L.Ed.2d 683, 697 .	1	1998–1998
Branzburg v. Hayes green scotus · 1972 1 sentence 1991Noting that news gathering is protected by the First Amendment, see Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), 408 U.S. 665, 681 , the Sherman court analyzed the order as a prior restraint on speech with “a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Sherman, supra, at 1361, citing Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), 372 U.S. 58, 70 .	1	1991–1991
Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe green scotus · 1971 1 sentence 1982Bantam Books, Inc., v. Sullivan (1963), 372 U. S. 58 ; Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971), 402 U. S. 415 .	1	1982–1982

Where else courts name it

MI 223 (1982–2026) NY 84 (1975–2026) TX 59 (1973–2026) IL 38 (1975–2025) CA 36 (1967–2024) AL 29 (1981–2017) WA 29 (1968–2026) MS 18 (1990–2025) PA 18 (1975–2026) FL 17 (1975–2023) OH 17 (1982–2022) IN 16 (1992–2026) WI 12 (1988–2004) MA 11 (1982–2020) DE 11 (1992–2025) MD 11 (1982–2026) CO 9 (1971–2010) AZ 9 (1984–2018) TN 9 (2001–2017) RI 8 (1972–2010) MN 7 (1975–2015) NV 6 (1976–2020) GA 6 (1984–2022) NJ 6 (1968–1993) LA 6 (1982–2023) ME 5 (1996–2022) AR 5 (1980–2025) CT 5 (1996–2005) IA 4 (1984–2016) ND 4 (1986–1996) UT 4 (1983–2003) KY 4 (2010–2024) WV 3 (1989–2015) WY 3 (2011–2015) NC 3 (1979–2017) NH 3 (2010–2023) SC 2 (2013–2016) DC 2 (1979–2008) NM 2 (1996–2011) VA 2 (1977–2023) KS 2 (1984–2020) OK 2 (1979–2023)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check