111 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2026 19 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re K.Y.green2 sentences2026In re K.Y., 2025-Ohio-1117, ¶ 35 (5th Dist.) (“Without a transcript to review, we presume the trial court conducted an inquiry at the commencement of these proceedings.”); L.T. at ¶ 17 (“in the absence of a transcript of the initial hearing wherein Father was present, we must presume Father was asked by the trial court about Native American ancestry”). {¶47} Crucially, Mother does not contend either of the children meets the definition of an “Indian child” under the ICWA nor does she point to any evidence in the record supporting such a contention. 2025In re K.Y., 2025-Ohio-1117, ¶ 35 (5th Dist.) In addition, the case plans, which were reviewed and agreed to by Father and adopted by the trial court as orders in this case, indicate the child is not protected by the Act. {¶17} As cited by Father in his brief, Ohio courts have nullified determinations terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody to a government agency in cases where the Act has not been followed. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fishgreen2 sentences2024Id. {¶ 73} Further, “ ‘[c]onsideration of the factors is a balancing test, and no one factor is conclusive.’ ” Id., quoting Zimmerman at ¶ 13, citing State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 (1st Dist.1995). {¶ 74} In the present case, appellant filed motions to withdraw guilty plea in both cases, and the trial court conducted a hearing on the motions on August 4, 2020. 2023Hamilton No. C-020802, 2003-Ohio-4308 , ¶ 7, citing State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1995). {¶10} Here, the court conducted a hearing and considered the relevant factors. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Weissgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., State v. Weiss, 2025-Ohio-277, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.) (defendant presented no evidence to demonstrate that restitution had been paid in full). | 1 | 1 |
In re B.M.green1 sentence2026See, e.g., In re L.B., 2025-Ohio-2269, at ¶ 46-48 (5th Dist.) (case plan clearly stated minor children were not protected by ICWA and failure of trial court to make inquiry at permanent custody hearing did not affect legitimacy of the proceedings or result in a manifest miscarriage of justice); In re L.W., 2025-Ohio-2236, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.) (because there was no indication from Mother that she or her minor child had Native American heritage, trial court’s lack of an ICWA inquiry did not cause a manifest miscarriage of justice); see also In re B.M., 2025-Ohio-1786, ¶ 43-44 (5th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
In re L.W.green1 sentence2026See, e.g., In re L.B., 2025-Ohio-2269, at ¶ 46-48 (5th Dist.) (case plan clearly stated minor children were not protected by ICWA and failure of trial court to make inquiry at permanent custody hearing did not affect legitimacy of the proceedings or result in a manifest miscarriage of justice); In re L.W., 2025-Ohio-2236, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.) (because there was no indication from Mother that she or her minor child had Native American heritage, trial court’s lack of an ICWA inquiry did not cause a manifest miscarriage of justice); see also In re B.M., 2025-Ohio-1786, ¶ 43-44 (5th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
In re L.B.green1 sentence2026See, e.g., In re L.B., 2025-Ohio-2269, at ¶ 46-48 (5th Dist.) (case plan clearly stated minor children were not protected by ICWA and failure of trial court to make inquiry at permanent custody hearing did not affect legitimacy of the proceedings or result in a manifest miscarriage of justice); In re L.W., 2025-Ohio-2236, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.) (because there was no indication from Mother that she or her minor child had Native American heritage, trial court’s lack of an ICWA inquiry did not cause a manifest miscarriage of justice); see also In re B.M., 2025-Ohio-1786, ¶ 43-44 (5th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert E. Iles, Sr.green1 sentence2026“The need for an inquiry by the trial judge into the circumstances surrounding a request to discharge appointed counsel and appoint substitute counsel will not be recognized where the defendant has not evidenced his dissatisfaction or wish to remove his appointed counsel.” United States v. Iles, 906 F.2d 1122, 1131 (6th Cir. 1990). {¶17} Having reviewed the record, even though not required to do so, this Court finds that the trial court conducted an inquiry of Attorney Dawson regarding his reasons for filing his request. | 1 | 1 |
In re A.M.green1 sentence2026In re A.M., 2026-Ohio-717, ¶ 7-10 (9th Dist.). {¶4} On remand, the trial court conducted a hearing during which A.M. testified briefly and counsel for both parties presented legal arguments addressing the threshold issues under Criminal Rule 17, the applicable privilege provided by Section 2317.02(G), and the relative interests of A.M. and R.M.S. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. MJS Ents., Ltd.green1 sentence2025See Williams at ¶ 31 (concluding that the trial court’s failure to notify the parties that it was converting the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment was not harmless error -12- Case No. 8-24-07 because “[t]he trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing” and Williams was not notified that he could submit Civ.R. 56(C) material beyond the face of the complaint, [and] he did not do so”). {¶22} For these reasons, the trial court erred by considering additional evidence beyond the evidence contained in the amended complaint. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rallsgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Ralls, 2022-Ohio-2110, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Karnofel v. Girard Police Dept., Unpublished Decision (11-18-2005)green1 sentence2025Khasawneh v. Aldamen, 2024-Ohio-937, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.) (“[i]n the absence of a complete transcript of the proceedings, a statement of the evidence pursuant to App.R. 9(C), or an agreed statement pursuant to App.R. 9(D), an appellate court has no alternative but to indulge the presumption of the regularity of the proceedings and the validity of the judgment of the trial court”); Karnofel v. Girard Police Dept., 2005-Ohio-6154, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.); compare In re Estate of Howard, 2008-Ohio-2104, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.) (the heir’s claim that she “was not presented with an opportunity to ‘present her clai | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Collier v. Farley., Unpublished Decision (7-26-2005)green1 sentence2025Collier v. Farley, 2005-Ohio-4204, ¶ 18 (4th Dist.), citing In re Adoption of Gibson, 23 Ohio St.3d Vinton App. No. 25CA704 9 170, 173, fn. 3 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
In re S.M.green1 sentence2025In re S.M., 2025-Ohio-34 ¶ 16 (9th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Khasawneh v. Aldamengreen1 sentence2025Khasawneh v. Aldamen, 2024-Ohio-937, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.) (“[i]n the absence of a complete transcript of the proceedings, a statement of the evidence pursuant to App.R. 9(C), or an agreed statement pursuant to App.R. 9(D), an appellate court has no alternative but to indulge the presumption of the regularity of the proceedings and the validity of the judgment of the trial court”); Karnofel v. Girard Police Dept., 2005-Ohio-6154, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.); compare In re Estate of Howard, 2008-Ohio-2104, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.) (the heir’s claim that she “was not presented with an opportunity to ‘present her clai | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Howard, 07ca009198 (5-5-2008)green1 sentence2025Khasawneh v. Aldamen, 2024-Ohio-937, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.) (“[i]n the absence of a complete transcript of the proceedings, a statement of the evidence pursuant to App.R. 9(C), or an agreed statement pursuant to App.R. 9(D), an appellate court has no alternative but to indulge the presumption of the regularity of the proceedings and the validity of the judgment of the trial court”); Karnofel v. Girard Police Dept., 2005-Ohio-6154, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.); compare In re Estate of Howard, 2008-Ohio-2104, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.) (the heir’s claim that she “was not presented with an opportunity to ‘present her clai | 1 | 1 |
Wood v. Heingreen1 sentence2024See also Wood at ¶ 7 (challenging in a direct appeal from divorce decree the manner in which the trial court conducted the hearing). {¶ 45} If Steven disagreed with how the trial court conducted the final hearing, the propriety of the trial court’s acceptance of the proposed decree, and/or the sufficiency of the evidence to support the asset division, he should have directly appealed the final judgment — decree of divorce to seek a reversal based on those issues. | 1 | 1 |
| Petrey v. Simongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Simsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Fugategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Obermiller (Slip Opinion)green | 1 | 1 |
| Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Fraziergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Peacegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hernandez v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2007Appellant filed a timely appeal to this Court, which affirmed his conviction and sentence via Opinion and Judgment Entry filed March 8, 2005. {¶ 4} In response to the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Hernandez v. Kelly , 108 Ohio St. 3d 395 , 2006-Ohio-126 , the trial court conducted a hearing regarding appellant's post-release control obligations. 2007The sentencing judgment entry makes no mention of appellant's PRC obligations. {¶ 5} On June 26, 2006 in response to the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Hernandez v. Kelley , 108 Ohio St.3d 395 , 2006-Ohio-126 , the trial court conducted a hearing regarding appellant's post-release control obligations. | 6 | 2007–2017 |
State v. Xie
green
2 sentences2024“It is not the role of an appellate court to conduct a de novo review of a trial court’s decision in these circumstances.” Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d at 527 , 584 N.E.2d 715 . 2005Instead, the trial court "must conduct a hearing to determine whether there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea." Id. {¶ 4} Here, the trial court conducted a hearing to consider whether appellant's claim of innocence was a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the guilty plea. | 4 | 2005–2024 |
State v. Fischer
green
2 sentences2017Appellant filed the instant pro se appeal and asserts the following three assignments of error: {¶8} “[1.] Whether, and pursuant to the clear and unambiguous language of State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 , at: ¶1; State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 ; and, Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 , at: ¶23, the trial court was/is prohibited from a *retroactive application of the *new judicial ruling in: State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 ; and, an ex post facto application of: O.R.C. 2929.191, eff. 7/11/2006, with respect to the correction of a facially flawed postrelease control notificatio 2017The resentencing was limited to the “proper imposition of postrelease control.” State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , ¶ 27. | 3 | 2012–2017 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion in limine, at which Stahl argued that introduction of Mazurek’s statement would violate his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 . 2006The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion in limine, at which Stahl argued that introduction of Mazurek’s statement would violate his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 . | 3 | 2005–2006 |
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences2004State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151 , 157 . {¶ 13} In the instant case, the trial court conducted a hearing on H.'s competency to testify at trial. 2004State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151 , 157 . {¶ 13} In the instant case, the trial court conducted a hearing on H.'s competency to testify at trial. | 3 | 2003–2004 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2026She also argued that R.M.S. did not have a constitutional right to access the records because they were not exculpatory within the meaning of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2 {¶3} The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to quash, although it is unclear from the record what the nature of the hearing was or what form it took. 2007The same judge presided over the trial and the hearing on the petition. {¶ 4} The trial court considered four issues raised in the petition for postconviction relief, which related to trial counsel's failure to explore the following evidentiary issues: 1) the effect of medical problems and Hennis's medications on his sexual desire and ability to get an erection; 2) an alleged discrepancy in the length and comprehensiveness of an audio-recorded conversation between Hennis and the alleged victim, which Hennis claims was indicative of tampering with the tape and a possible violation of Brady v. M | 2 | 2007–2026 |
State v. Singleton
red
2 sentences2017Appellant filed the instant pro se appeal and asserts the following three assignments of error: {¶8} “[1.] Whether, and pursuant to the clear and unambiguous language of State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 , at: ¶1; State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 ; and, Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 , at: ¶23, the trial court was/is prohibited from a *retroactive application of the *new judicial ruling in: State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 ; and, an ex post facto application of: O.R.C. 2929.191, eff. 7/11/2006, with respect to the correction of a facially flawed postrelease control notificatio 2012State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 , 2009-Ohio-6434 , 920 N.E.2d 958 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 2 | 2012–2017 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
2 sentences2011Moreover, where the evidence would support several conclusions but the lower court has decided to weigh more heavily in one direction, “[s]uch a choice between ... permissible views of the weight of evidence is not ‘clearly erroneous'.” United States v. Yellow Cab Co. (1949), 338 U.S. 338, 342 , 70 S.Ct. 177 , 94 L.Ed. 150 . {¶25} In the instant action, the trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 , in conjunction with the motion to suppress.1 1 A Franks hearing is an evidentiary hearing “ ‘[w]here the defendant makes a 2011Moreover, where the evidence would support several conclusions but the lower court has decided to weigh more heavily in one direction, “[s]uch a choice between ... permissible views of the weight of evidence is not ‘clearly erroneous'.” United States v. Yellow Cab Co. (1949), 338 U.S. 338, 342 , 70 S.Ct. 177 , 94 L.Ed. 150 . {¶25} In the instant action, the trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 , in conjunction with the motion to suppress.1 1 A Franks hearing is an evidentiary hearing “ ‘[w]here the defendant makes a | 2 | 2006–2011 |
Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Railroad Commission of Texas
green
2 sentences1994Comm. of Texas (W.D.Tex.1987), 671 F.Supp. 466 , affirmed (C.A.5, 1988), 850 F.2d 264 , the court conducted an analysis of Congressional intent behind Section 434. 1994Comm. of Texas (W.D.Tex.1987), 671 F.Supp. 466 , affirmed (C.A.5, 1988), 850 F.2d 264 , the court conducted an analysis of Congressional intent behind Section 434. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Railroad Commission of Texas
green
2 sentences1994Comm. of Texas (W.D.Tex.1987), 671 F.Supp. 466 , affirmed (C.A.5, 1988), 850 F.2d 264 , the court conducted an analysis of Congressional intent behind Section 434. 1994Comm. of Texas (W.D.Tex.1987), 671 F.Supp. 466 , affirmed (C.A.5, 1988), 850 F.2d 264 , the court conducted an analysis of Congressional intent behind Section 434. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Martin v. Dockter
green
1 sentence2024No. 17AP-261, 2018-Ohio-858, ¶ 6 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Hough
green
1 sentence2024In State v. Hough, 169 Ohio St.3d 769 , 2022-Ohio-4436 (“Hough II”), the Supreme Court held this court erred in concluding the trial court’s failure to hold a competency hearing was harmless error; the Supreme Court therefore vacated appellant’s convictions and remanded the matter to the trial court “to provide * * * an inquiry into [appellant’s] competency that is contemporaneous with his trial.” Id. at ¶ 42. {¶ 6} Following remand, the trial court conducted a hearing on February 16, 2023 regarding the court’s receipt of a competency evaluation report dated February 2, 2023. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. McClelland, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2021No. 06AP-1236, 2007-Ohio-841, ¶ 9 . {¶ 12} The trial court conducted a hearing and made the specific findings mandated in Sell. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Maggette
green
1 sentence2021Seneca No. 13-16-06, 2016-Ohio-5554, ¶ 31 . {¶17} Notably, notwithstanding the wording of Reed’s assignment of error, the record clearly established the trial court conducted an analysis of these factors both at the sentencing hearing and in its judgment entry of sentence. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Litchfield Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Forever Blueberry Barn, L.L.C. neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Anders v. California green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Litchfield Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Forever Blueberry Barn, L.L.C. neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Boggs green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Remmer v. United States green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Buxton neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Cooperrider green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Long green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Duncan v. Missouri green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Rogers v. Tennessee green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Lewallen v. Mentor Lagoons, Inc. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Adams green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Bezak red | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Clark green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Holdcroft green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Burnside green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Little green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Penix, 23699 (3-12-2008) neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Perry green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Donnal, 1-06-31 (4-9-2007) green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Szefcyk green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Dean green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Garvin neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Preztak green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.