16 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 1 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. Lawson (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2026Because Hill was seeking to have the trial court reconsider the validity of his death sentence based on new evidence and a newly recognized legal standard, his Civ.R. 60(B) motion was properly characterized by the trial court as a successive postconviction petition, which is governed by R.C. 2953.23. {¶ 29} I write separately to highlight the context of Hill’s claim and to emphasize the responsibility this court has in ensuring integrity in applying Ohio’s capital-punishment laws, see State v. Wogenstahl, 2024-Ohio-4714, ¶ 45 (Brunner, J., dissenting), quoting State v. Lawson, 2021-Ohio-3566, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wogenstahlgreen1 sentence2026Because Hill was seeking to have the trial court reconsider the validity of his death sentence based on new evidence and a newly recognized legal standard, his Civ.R. 60(B) motion was properly characterized by the trial court as a successive postconviction petition, which is governed by R.C. 2953.23. {¶ 29} I write separately to highlight the context of Hill’s claim and to emphasize the responsibility this court has in ensuring integrity in applying Ohio’s capital-punishment laws, see State v. Wogenstahl, 2024-Ohio-4714, ¶ 45 (Brunner, J., dissenting), quoting State v. Lawson, 2021-Ohio-3566, | 1 | 1 |
Danny Hill v. Carl Anderson, Wardengreen1 sentence2026In its merit brief, the State argues that R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(k) prohibits Hill from raising “the exact same [Atkins] claim” that he unsuccessfully raised in 2003. {¶ 32} That the State seeks to foreclose Hill’s ability to have his claim that he is intellectually disabled reviewed under the current legal standard is extremely concerning, especially given the substantial evidence that supports Hill’s claim, see Hill v. Shoop, 597 U.S. __ , 142 S.Ct. 2579 (2022) (Mem.) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). {¶ 33} On habeas corpus review, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Si | 1 | 1 |
Shoop v. Hillgreen1 sentence2026The Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s judgment, finding that that court had erred in relying extensively on Moore, because Moore “was not handed down until long after the state-court decisions” in Hill’s case; it remanded the case to the Sixth Circuit with instructions to evaluate Hill’s claim regarding his intellectual disability “based solely on holdings of [the United States Supreme Court] that were clearly established at the relevant time.” Shoop v. Hill, 586 U.S. 45, 46 (2019) (per curiam). {¶ 10} On remand, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit granted Hill relief in habeas co | 1 | 1 |
Huff v. FirstEnergy Corp.green2 sentences2013E.g., Huff v. FirstEnergy Corp., 130 Ohio St.3d 196 , 2011-Ohio-5083, ¶ 10-11 (applying Hill test). {¶49} The Supreme Court has provided the following guidance for the application of the Hill test: Courts generally presume that a contract’s intent resides in the language the parties choose to use in the agreement. 2013E.g., Huff v. FirstEnergy Corp., 130 Ohio St.3d 196 , 2011-Ohio-5083, ¶ 10-11 (applying Hill test). {¶49} The Supreme Court has provided the following guidance for the application of the Hill test: Courts generally presume that a contract’s intent resides in the language the parties choose to use in the agreement. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2007Consequently, the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Hill's claim." The court affirmed the dismissal of Hill's motion, "even though the trial court relied on other grounds to deny relief." Id. {¶ 5} The State relies on State v. Reynolds , Putnam App. No. 12-01-11, 2002-Ohio-2823 , which criticized Hill as follows: "The Hill decision was based largely on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Reynolds (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 158 , 1997-Ohio-304 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 in which the court held, `Where a criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct appeal, files a 2007Consequently, the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Hill's claim." The court affirmed the dismissal of Hill's motion, "even though the trial court relied on other grounds to deny relief." Id. {¶ 5} The State relies on State v. Reynolds , Putnam App. No. 12-01-11, 2002-Ohio-2823 , which criticized Hill as follows: "The Hill decision was based largely on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Reynolds (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 158 , 1997-Ohio-304 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 in which the court held, `Where a criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct appeal, files a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boonegreen1 sentence2005See, also, State v. Boone (1995), 108 Ohio App.3d 233 (evidentiary hearing properly denied when defendant's boilerplate motion did not contain a single factual allegation to support his claims). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bridgemangreen2 sentences2004See Crim.R. 29; see, also, State v. Bridgeman (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 381 N.E.2d 184 . {¶ 19} Our review of the record fails to persuade us that the trial court, sitting as the trier of fact, clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. 2004See Crim.R. 29; see, also, State v. Bridgeman (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 381 N.E.2d 184 . {¶ 19} Our review of the record fails to persuade us that the trial court, sitting as the trier of fact, clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Waddyred2 sentences2004See State v. Waddy (1991), 63 Ohio St.3d 424 , 430 , 588 N.E.2d 819 , certiorari denied (1992), 506 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 338 . {¶ 18} Moreover, the trial court properly denied Hill's motion for a judgment of acquittal, when reasonable minds could have reached different conclusions as to whether each element of the crime charged, including the mens rea of willfully fleeing, had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 2004See State v. Waddy (1991), 63 Ohio St.3d 424 , 430 , 588 N.E.2d 819 , certiorari denied (1992), 506 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 338 . {¶ 18} Moreover, the trial court properly denied Hill's motion for a judgment of acquittal, when reasonable minds could have reached different conclusions as to whether each element of the crime charged, including the mens rea of willfully fleeing, had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1 |
Faulk v. Texas Department of Human Servicesgreen1 sentence2004See State v. Waddy (1991), 63 Ohio St.3d 424 , 430 , 588 N.E.2d 819 , certiorari denied (1992), 506 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 338 . {¶ 18} Moreover, the trial court properly denied Hill's motion for a judgment of acquittal, when reasonable minds could have reached different conclusions as to whether each element of the crime charged, including the mens rea of willfully fleeing, had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1 |
Titus v. Bugyigreen1 sentence2004See State v. Waddy (1991), 63 Ohio St.3d 424 , 430 , 588 N.E.2d 819 , certiorari denied (1992), 506 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 338 . {¶ 18} Moreover, the trial court properly denied Hill's motion for a judgment of acquittal, when reasonable minds could have reached different conclusions as to whether each element of the crime charged, including the mens rea of willfully fleeing, had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Baranski, Unpublished Decision (9-16-2005)
neutral
2 sentences2016No. 04CA2971, 2005-Ohio-4956 , 2005 WL 2296644 , ¶ 5–6 (acknowledging the application of Hill’s rule but finding no record of counsel’s consent to a trial date beyond the 120–day limitation). {¶ 55} In this case, a judgment entry was filed on August 1, 2011, stating, “Upon motion of the Defendant and for good cause shown the Court hereby grants the parties [sic] motion for a continuance of the motions hearing [Johnson’s motions to suppress] date herein from July 14, 2011 to the 21st day of September, 2011* * *.” Johnson’s counsel signed the entry. 2008No. 04CA2971, 2005-Ohio-4956 , 2005 WL 2296644 , ¶5-6 (acknowledging the application of Hill’s rule but finding no record of counsel’s consent to a trial date beyond the 120-day limitation). {¶ 16} For all these reasons, we hold that defense counsel’s agreement to a trial date set beyond IAD, Article IV(c)’s 120-day statutory period waives the defendant’s rights as to the IAD’s speedy-trial provision. {¶ 17} In its judgment entry denying Golden’s motion to dismiss, the trial court found that Golden’s defense counsel agreed to the January 15, 2008 trial date, which was four days beyond the IAD’ | 2 | 2008–2016 |
State v. Lott
green
2 sentences1996Moreover, our “independent review of a sentence will cure any flaws in the trial court’s opinion.” State v. Fox (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 183, 191 , 631 N.E.2d 124, 131 ; State v. Lewis (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 200, 204 , 616 N.E.2d 921, 925 ; and State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 170 , 555 N.E.2d 293, 304 , all held that a trial court’s failure to explain why aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating factors may be corrected by our independent sentence assessment. {¶ 73} We reject Hill’s claim that the trial court erred in evaluating mitigating evidence. 1996Moreover, our “independent review of a sentence will cure any flaws in the trial court’s opinion.” State v. Fox (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 183, 191 , 631 N.E.2d 124, 131 ; State v. Lewis (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 200, 204 , 616 N.E.2d 921, 925 ; and State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 170 , 555 N.E.2d 293, 304 , all held that a trial court’s failure to explain why aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating factors may be corrected by our independent sentence assessment. {¶ 73} We reject Hill’s claim that the trial court erred in evaluating mitigating evidence. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Fox
green
2 sentences1996Moreover, our “independent review of a sentence will cure any flaws in the trial court’s opinion.” State v. Fox (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 183, 191 , 631 N.E.2d 124, 131 ; State v. Lewis (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 200, 204 , 616 N.E.2d 921, 925 ; and State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 170 , 555 N.E.2d 293, 304 , all held that a trial court’s failure to explain why aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating factors may be corrected by our independent sentence assessment. {¶ 73} We reject Hill’s claim that the trial court erred in evaluating mitigating evidence. 1996Moreover, our “independent review of a sentence will cure any flaws in the trial court’s opinion.” State v. Fox (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 183, 191 , 631 N.E.2d 124, 131 ; State v. Lewis (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 200, 204 , 616 N.E.2d 921, 925 ; and State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 170 , 555 N.E.2d 293, 304 , all held that a trial court’s failure to explain why aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating factors may be corrected by our independent sentence assessment. {¶ 73} We reject Hill’s claim that the trial court erred in evaluating mitigating evidence. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Atkins v. Virginia
green
1 sentence2026Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Reid, Unpublished Decision (11-14-2003)
neutral
1 sentence2019State v. Reid, Montgomery App. No. 19729, 2003-Ohio-6079, ¶ 51 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Shuster
green
1 sentence2018Morgan No. 16AP0012, 2017-Ohio-2776 , 2017 WL 2258804 , ¶ 18 (cases cited). {¶ 42} The fourth assignment of error is without merit. {¶ 43} In his first assignment of error, Hill contends that the trial court erred in its application of res judicata and the law of the case doctrine as a way of excusing itself "from engaging in an independent re-examination of the new evidence and evidentiary record as required by Criminal Rule 33 and State v. Petro ." Since "the trial court's denial of Mr. Hill's motion rests upon its finding of preclusion, * * * its Order must be reversed." Appellant's brief a | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Johnson (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2016State v. Johnson, 141 Ohio St.3d 136 , 2014-Ohio-5021 , 22 N.E.3d 1061, ¶ 49 . {¶ 15} We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not err in overruling Hill’s motion to suppress. 2016State v. Johnson, 141 Ohio St.3d 136 , 2014-Ohio-5021 , 22 N.E.3d 1061, ¶ 49 . {¶ 15} We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not err in overruling Hill’s motion to suppress. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Bloom
green
1 sentence2014Cuyahoga No. 97535, 2012-Ohio-3805, ¶ 13 . {¶11} On review, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hill’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Jordan
green
1 sentence2012No. 95158, 2011-Ohio-938 , ¶ 7, citing State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 , 2004-Ohio-6085 , 817 N.E.2d 864 , paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State ex rel. Hill v. Niehaus
neutral
2 sentences2009Id. at 509 , 628 N.E.2d 1376 . {¶ 11} The Hill analysis was limited to the adequacy of an App.R. 9(E) motion to correct before a trial court. 2009Id. at 509 , 628 N.E.2d 1376 . {¶ 11} The Hill analysis was limited to the adequacy of an App.R. 9(E) motion to correct before a trial court. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Reynolds
green
2 sentences2007Consequently, the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Hill's claim." The court affirmed the dismissal of Hill's motion, "even though the trial court relied on other grounds to deny relief." Id. {¶ 5} The State relies on State v. Reynolds , Putnam App. No. 12-01-11, 2002-Ohio-2823 , which criticized Hill as follows: "The Hill decision was based largely on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Reynolds (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 158 , 1997-Ohio-304 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 in which the court held, `Where a criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct appeal, files a 2007Consequently, the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Hill's claim." The court affirmed the dismissal of Hill's motion, "even though the trial court relied on other grounds to deny relief." Id. {¶ 5} The State relies on State v. Reynolds , Putnam App. No. 12-01-11, 2002-Ohio-2823 , which criticized Hill as follows: "The Hill decision was based largely on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Reynolds (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 158 , 1997-Ohio-304 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 in which the court held, `Where a criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct appeal, files a | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Reynolds
green
2 sentences2007Consequently, the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Hill's claim." The court affirmed the dismissal of Hill's motion, "even though the trial court relied on other grounds to deny relief." Id. {¶ 5} The State relies on State v. Reynolds , Putnam App. No. 12-01-11, 2002-Ohio-2823 , which criticized Hill as follows: "The Hill decision was based largely on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Reynolds (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 158 , 1997-Ohio-304 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 in which the court held, `Where a criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct appeal, files a 2007Consequently, the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Hill's claim." The court affirmed the dismissal of Hill's motion, "even though the trial court relied on other grounds to deny relief." Id. {¶ 5} The State relies on State v. Reynolds , Putnam App. No. 12-01-11, 2002-Ohio-2823 , which criticized Hill as follows: "The Hill decision was based largely on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Reynolds (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 158 , 1997-Ohio-304 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 in which the court held, `Where a criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct appeal, files a | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hill v. Lockhart
green
2 sentences2000Hill , 474 U.S. at 57 -58 , 88 L.Ed.2d at 209 -210 . 2000Hill , 474 U.S. at 57 -58 , 88 L.Ed.2d at 209 -210 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Lewis
green
2 sentences1996Moreover, our “independent review of a sentence will cure any flaws in the trial court’s opinion.” State v. Fox (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 183, 191 , 631 N.E.2d 124, 131 ; State v. Lewis (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 200, 204 , 616 N.E.2d 921, 925 ; and State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 170 , 555 N.E.2d 293, 304 , all held that a trial court’s failure to explain why aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating factors may be corrected by our independent sentence assessment. {¶ 73} We reject Hill’s claim that the trial court erred in evaluating mitigating evidence. 1996Moreover, our “independent review of a sentence will cure any flaws in the trial court’s opinion.” State v. Fox (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 183, 191 , 631 N.E.2d 124, 131 ; State v. Lewis (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 200, 204 , 616 N.E.2d 921, 925 ; and State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 170 , 555 N.E.2d 293, 304 , all held that a trial court’s failure to explain why aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating factors may be corrected by our independent sentence assessment. {¶ 73} We reject Hill’s claim that the trial court erred in evaluating mitigating evidence. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.