minimum constitutional standard (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

minimum constitutional standard in Ohio

17 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2010 0 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Central Trust Co. v. Jensengreen
ohio · 1993 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004Accordingly, the prevailing principle of Mullane and Adams is "notice at least by mail is a constitutional prerequisite to a proceeding that adversely affects a property interest where the interest holder's address is known or easily ascertainable." Jensen , at 143. {¶ 15} In the case at bar, the record reveals this constitutional prerequisite was not met.

2004Moreover, "notice by mail or by other means equally reliable, is the minimum constitutional requirement for a proceeding affecting the property interest of a party when the party's name and address are reasonably ascertainable." Jensen , at 142, citing Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams (1983), 462 U.S. 791 , 798-800 , 103 S.Ct. 2706 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Williams green
ohioctapp · 1993
2 sentences

2010State v. Williams (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 37, 41 , 619 N.E.2d 1141 . {¶ 11} We begin with the claim that the warrant was not valid because there was no probable cause for its issuance.

2010State v. Williams (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 37, 41 , 619 N.E.2d 1141 . {¶ 11} We begin with the claim that the warrant was not valid because there was no probable cause for its issuance.

131998–2010
Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams green
scotus · 1983
2 sentences

2004Moreover, "notice by mail or by other means equally reliable, is the minimum constitutional requirement for a proceeding affecting the property interest of a party when the party's name and address are reasonably ascertainable." Jensen , at 142, citing Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams (1983), 462 U.S. 791 , 798-800 , 103 S.Ct. 2706 .

2004Moreover, "notice by mail or by other means equally reliable, is the minimum constitutional requirement for a proceeding affecting the property interest of a party when the party's name and address are reasonably ascertainable." Jensen , at 142, citing Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams (1983), 462 U.S. 791 , 798-800 , 103 S.Ct. 2706 .

41993–2004
State v. Owens green
ohioctapp · 1975
2 sentences

2003State v. Williams (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 37 , 41 , 619 N.E.2d 1141 . {¶ 15} As we previously stated, "if . . . the detective did present the addendum to the issuing judge attached to the first affidavit and search warrant and the detective swore to the truth of the statements in the addendum, then pursuant to Thurman and Owens the addendum was legally sufficient to authorize the search of the Owens Drive address." Hardy , Montgomery App. No. 19029, ¶ 15, citing State v. Thurman (July 2, 1991), Montgomery App. No. 12420, unreported; State v. Owens (1975), 51 Ohio App.2d 132 , 366 N.E.2d 1367 .

2003State v. Williams (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 37 , 41 , 619 N.E.2d 1141 . {¶ 15} As we previously stated, "if . . . the detective did present the addendum to the issuing judge attached to the first affidavit and search warrant and the detective swore to the truth of the statements in the addendum, then pursuant to Thurman and Owens the addendum was legally sufficient to authorize the search of the Owens Drive address." Hardy , Montgomery App. No. 19029, ¶ 15, citing State v. Thurman (July 2, 1991), Montgomery App. No. 12420, unreported; State v. Owens (1975), 51 Ohio App.2d 132 , 366 N.E.2d 1367 .

12003–2003

Where else courts name it

OH 17 (1993–2010) TX 4 (1992–2020) WA 4 (2009–2019) KS 4 (1976–2026) MS 3 (2015–2017) NY 3 (1985–2012) LA 2 (1972–1973)

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