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.
17 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2008 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wells, Unpublished Decision (3-5-2004)green1 sentence2004See, also, State v. Wells, Greene App. No. 2003 CA 68, 2004-Ohio-1026 (whereas failure to comply with Ohio Adm. Code Chapter 3701-53 precludes admission of test results for per se violations of R.C. 4511.19 [A], such deficiencies do not necessarily render results inadmissible for violations of R.C. 4511.19 [A][1]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Newark v. Lucas
green
2 sentences2008Based on these principles, we held that `the results of a properly administered bodily substances test presented with expert testimony may be admitted in evidence despite the fact that the bodily substance was withdrawn more than two hours from the time of the alleged violation.' Id. at 105 , 532 N.E.2d 130 ." Hassler , supra at 324-325 , 2007-Ohio-4947 at ¶ 11 , 875 N.E.2d 46 , 48-49 . {¶ 21} In the case at bar the trial court apparently granted the State's motion in limine upon the belief that the BAC results were inadmissible because appellant was not charged with a per se violation of R.C. 2008Based on these principles, we held that `the results of a properly administered bodily substances test presented with expert testimony may be admitted in evidence despite the fact that the bodily substance was withdrawn more than two hours from the time of the alleged violation.' Id. at 105 , 532 N.E.2d 130 ." Hassler , supra at 324-325 , 2007-Ohio-4947 at ¶ 11 , 875 N.E.2d 46 , 48-49 . {¶ 21} In the case at bar the trial court apparently granted the State's motion in limine upon the belief that the BAC results were inadmissible because appellant was not charged with a per se violation of R.C. | 14 | 1989–2008 |
State v. French
green
2 sentences2004However, in State v. French (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 446 , the Ohio Supreme Court stated, when discussing former Crim.R. 12(B)(3): {¶ 12} "Because Crim.R. 12(B)(3) applies to all charges under R.C. 4511.19 , a defendant charged under R.C. 4511.19 (A)(1) through (4) who does not challenge the admissibility of the chemical test results through a pretrial motion to suppress waives the requirement on the state to lay a foundation for the admissibility of the test results at trial. 2000In State v. French (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 446 , paragraph two of the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court held: "2. | 2 | 2000–2004 |
State v. Hassler
green
1 sentence2008Based on these principles, we held that `the results of a properly administered bodily substances test presented with expert testimony may be admitted in evidence despite the fact that the bodily substance was withdrawn more than two hours from the time of the alleged violation.' Id. at 105 , 532 N.E.2d 130 ." Hassler , supra at 324-325 , 2007-Ohio-4947 at ¶ 11 , 875 N.E.2d 46 , 48-49 . {¶ 21} In the case at bar the trial court apparently granted the State's motion in limine upon the belief that the BAC results were inadmissible because appellant was not charged with a per se violation of R.C. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Mayl
green
2 sentences2007According to one of the appellate judges on the panel that decided this present case, our recent decision in State v. Mayl, 106 Ohio St.3d 207 , 2005-Ohio-4629 , 833 N.E.2d 1216 , has cast doubt over the continuing validity of Lucas . 2007According to one of the appellate judges on the panel that decided this present case, our recent decision in State v. Mayl, 106 Ohio St.3d 207 , 2005-Ohio-4629 , 833 N.E.2d 1216 , has cast doubt over the continuing validity of Lucas . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
City of Mason v. Murphy
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 597 . "[I]n a criminal prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of R.C. 4511.19 (A)(1), the results of a properly administered bodily substances test presented with expert testimony may be admitted into evidence despite a lack of literal compliance with the requirements of R.C. 4511.19 ." State v. Quinones (Feb. 14, 1996), Lorain App. No. 95CA006084, 1996 WL 62578 , at *7. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Plummer
green
1 sentence2000According to R.C. 4511.19 (A)(3): "No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state, if any of the following apply: "* * * "(3) The person has a concentration of ten-hundredths of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of his breath." Unlike the substantial compliance standard applicable to certain regulations regarding alcohol testing, State v. Plummer (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 294 , it is well-established that "in a criminal prosecution for violation of R.C. 4511.19 (A)(2),(3) or (4), * * * the results of a properly administer | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.