16 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1905–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Phillips v. Garrettgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., State v. Holder, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 946 , 121 S.Ct. 1412 , 149 L.Ed.2d 353 , and State v. Wellbaum, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 1074 , 121 S.Ct. 2235 , 150 L.Ed.2d 225 . 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶39} Given the relevant observations from Woods and the fact that this court has repeatedly declined to review decisions that found no violation of double jeopardy protections in exactly these circumstances, it is not surprising that every other Ohio appellate court that has considered this issue has resolved it the same way—with a finding of no violation of double je 2002See, e.g., State v. Holder, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 946 , 121 S.Ct. 1412 , 149 L.Ed.2d 353 , and State v. Wellbaum, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 1074 , 121 S.Ct. 2235 , 150 L.Ed.2d 225 . {¶ 39} Given the relevant observations from Woods and the fact that this court has repeatedly declined to review decisions that found no violation of double jeopardy protections in exactly these circumstances, it is not surprising that every other Ohio appellate court that has considered this issue has resolved it the same way — with a finding of no violation of double jeopardy principles — wi | 2 | 2 |
Hamilton v. Honstedgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., State v. Holder, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 946 , 121 S.Ct. 1412 , 149 L.Ed.2d 353 , and State v. Wellbaum, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 1074 , 121 S.Ct. 2235 , 150 L.Ed.2d 225 . 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶39} Given the relevant observations from Woods and the fact that this court has repeatedly declined to review decisions that found no violation of double jeopardy protections in exactly these circumstances, it is not surprising that every other Ohio appellate court that has considered this issue has resolved it the same way—with a finding of no violation of double je 2002See, e.g., State v. Holder, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 946 , 121 S.Ct. 1412 , 149 L.Ed.2d 353 , and State v. Wellbaum, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 1074 , 121 S.Ct. 2235 , 150 L.Ed.2d 225 . {¶ 39} Given the relevant observations from Woods and the fact that this court has repeatedly declined to review decisions that found no violation of double jeopardy protections in exactly these circumstances, it is not surprising that every other Ohio appellate court that has considered this issue has resolved it the same way — with a finding of no violation of double jeopardy principles — wi | 2 | 2 |
Duenas-Ochoa v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., State v. Holder, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 946 , 121 S.Ct. 1412 , 149 L.Ed.2d 353 , and State v. Wellbaum, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 1074 , 121 S.Ct. 2235 , 150 L.Ed.2d 225 . 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶39} Given the relevant observations from Woods and the fact that this court has repeatedly declined to review decisions that found no violation of double jeopardy protections in exactly these circumstances, it is not surprising that every other Ohio appellate court that has considered this issue has resolved it the same way—with a finding of no violation of double je 2002See, e.g., State v. Holder, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 946 , 121 S.Ct. 1412 , 149 L.Ed.2d 353 , and State v. Wellbaum, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 1074 , 121 S.Ct. 2235 , 150 L.Ed.2d 225 . {¶ 39} Given the relevant observations from Woods and the fact that this court has repeatedly declined to review decisions that found no violation of double jeopardy protections in exactly these circumstances, it is not surprising that every other Ohio appellate court that has considered this issue has resolved it the same way — with a finding of no violation of double jeopardy principles — wi | 2 | 2 |
White v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., State v. Holder, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 946 , 121 S.Ct. 1412 , 149 L.Ed.2d 353 , and State v. Wellbaum, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 1074 , 121 S.Ct. 2235 , 150 L.Ed.2d 225 . 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶39} Given the relevant observations from Woods and the fact that this court has repeatedly declined to review decisions that found no violation of double jeopardy protections in exactly these circumstances, it is not surprising that every other Ohio appellate court that has considered this issue has resolved it the same way—with a finding of no violation of double je 2002See, e.g., State v. Holder, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 946 , 121 S.Ct. 1412 , 149 L.Ed.2d 353 , and State v. Wellbaum, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 1074 , 121 S.Ct. 2235 , 150 L.Ed.2d 225 . {¶ 39} Given the relevant observations from Woods and the fact that this court has repeatedly declined to review decisions that found no violation of double jeopardy protections in exactly these circumstances, it is not surprising that every other Ohio appellate court that has considered this issue has resolved it the same way — with a finding of no violation of double jeopardy principles — wi | 2 | 2 |
Cruz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., State v. Holder, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 946 , 121 S.Ct. 1412 , 149 L.Ed.2d 353 , and State v. Wellbaum, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 1074 , 121 S.Ct. 2235 , 150 L.Ed.2d 225 . 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶39} Given the relevant observations from Woods and the fact that this court has repeatedly declined to review decisions that found no violation of double jeopardy protections in exactly these circumstances, it is not surprising that every other Ohio appellate court that has considered this issue has resolved it the same way—with a finding of no violation of double je 2002See, e.g., State v. Holder, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 946 , 121 S.Ct. 1412 , 149 L.Ed.2d 353 , and State v. Wellbaum, certiorari denied (2001), 532 U.S. 1074 , 121 S.Ct. 2235 , 150 L.Ed.2d 225 . {¶ 39} Given the relevant observations from Woods and the fact that this court has repeatedly declined to review decisions that found no violation of double jeopardy protections in exactly these circumstances, it is not surprising that every other Ohio appellate court that has considered this issue has resolved it the same way — with a finding of no violation of double jeopardy principles — wi | 2 | 2 |
In re Murraygreen1 sentence2026See generally In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 (1990); G. | 1 | 1 |
Granada v. Rojasgreen1 sentence2025“The trial court’s valuation of an asset in a divorce case is a question of fact reviewed under a manifest weight of the evidence standard.” Rossi v. Rossi, 2014-Ohio-1832, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.), citing Kapadia v. Kapadia, 2011-Ohio-2255, ¶ 24 (8th Dist.); see also Granada v. Rojas, 2024-Ohio-1272, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Rossi v. Rossigreen1 sentence2025“The trial court’s valuation of an asset in a divorce case is a question of fact reviewed under a manifest weight of the evidence standard.” Rossi v. Rossi, 2014-Ohio-1832, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.), citing Kapadia v. Kapadia, 2011-Ohio-2255, ¶ 24 (8th Dist.); see also Granada v. Rojas, 2024-Ohio-1272, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Kapadia v. Kapadiagreen1 sentence2025“The trial court’s valuation of an asset in a divorce case is a question of fact reviewed under a manifest weight of the evidence standard.” Rossi v. Rossi, 2014-Ohio-1832, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.), citing Kapadia v. Kapadia, 2011-Ohio-2255, ¶ 24 (8th Dist.); see also Granada v. Rojas, 2024-Ohio-1272, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jenksred2 sentences2021Fairfield No. 13-CA-50, 2014-Ohio-1758, ¶ 27 , citing Jenks, supra, 61 Ohio St.3d at 272 , paragraph one of the syllabus. 2021Fairfield No. 13-CA-50, 2014-Ohio-1758 , ¶ 27, citing Jenks, supra, 61 Ohio St.3d at 272, paragraph one of the syllabus. | 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. Griffin
green
2 sentences2021“The only notable exception to this principle is where the inference between the facts proven and the facts sought to be proven is so attenuated that no reasonable mind could find proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., citing State v. Griffin, 13 Ohio App.3d 376 , 377-378, 469 N.E.2d 1329 (1st Dist.1979). {¶38} If the state relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an essential element of an offense, it is not necessary for “such evidence to be irreconcilable with any [Cite as State v. Chester, 2021-Ohio-918 .] reasonable theory of innocence in order to support a conviction.” State v. Granado 2021“The only notable exception to this principle is where the inference between the facts proven and the facts sought to be proven is so attenuated that no reasonable mind could find proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., citing State v. Griffin, 13 Ohio App.3d 376 , 377-378, 469 N.E.2d 1329 (1st Dist.1979). {¶38} If the state relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an essential element of an offense, it is not necessary for “such evidence to be irreconcilable with any [Cite as State v. Chester, 2021-Ohio-918 .] reasonable theory of innocence in order to support a conviction.” State v. Granado | 10 | 1996–2021 |
State v. Hopfer
green
2 sentences2017“The only notable exception to this principle is where the inference between the facts proven and the facts sought to be proven is so attenuated that no reasonable mind could find proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., citing State v. Griffin (1979), 13 Ohio App.3d 376 , 377–378, 469 N.E.2d 1329 . 2017“The only notable exception to this principle is where the inference between the facts proven and the facts sought to be proven is so attenuated that no reasonable mind could find proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., citing State v. Griffin (1979), 13 Ohio App.3d 376, 377-378 , 469 N.E.2d 1329 . | 7 | 2005–2017 |
Woods v. Telb
green
2 sentences2002And given that two of the judges on the panel that decided this appeal have since determined that the case sub judice was wrongly decided, it now appears that all judges save one who have ruled on this issue have found no violation of double jeopardy principles in this situation. {¶40} In Woods, this court noted that pursuant to R.C. 2967.28, a defendant is fully informed at the time of imposition of sentence that “violations of post- release control will result in, essentially, ‘time and a half.’ ” Id. at 511, 733 N.E.2d 1103 . 2002And given that two of the judges on the panel that decided this appeal have since determined that the case sub judice was wrongly decided, it now appears that all judges save one who have ruled on this issue have found no violation of double jeopardy principles in this situation. {¶ 40} In Woods , this court noted that pursuant to R.C. 2967.28, a defendant is fully informed at the time of imposition of sentence that “violations of post-release control will result in, essentially, ‘time and a half.’ ” Id. at 511 , 733 N.E.2d 1103 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Chester
neutral
2 sentences2021“The only notable exception to this principle is where the inference between the facts proven and the facts sought to be proven is so attenuated that no reasonable mind could find proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., citing State v. Griffin, 13 Ohio App.3d 376, 377-378 , 469 N.E.2d 1329 (1st Dist.1979). {¶38} If the state relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an essential element of an offense, it is not necessary for “such evidence to be irreconcilable with any [Cite as State v. Chester, 2021-Ohio-918 .] reasonable theory of innocence in order to support a conviction.” State v. Granado 2021“The only notable exception to this principle is where the inference between the facts proven and the facts sought to be proven is so attenuated that no reasonable mind could find proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., citing State v. Griffin, 13 Ohio App.3d 376 , 377-378, 469 N.E.2d 1329 (1st Dist.1979). {¶38} If the state relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an essential element of an offense, it is not necessary for “such evidence to be irreconcilable with any [Cite as State v. Chester, 2021-Ohio-918 .] reasonable theory of innocence in order to support a conviction.” State v. Granado | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Granados
green
2 sentences2021Fairfield No. 13-CA-50, 2014-Ohio-1758, ¶ 27 , citing Jenks, supra, 61 Ohio St.3d at 272 , paragraph one of the syllabus. 2021Fairfield No. 13-CA-50, 2014-Ohio-1758 , ¶ 27, citing Jenks, supra, 61 Ohio St.3d at 272, paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Perry
green
1 sentence1990State v. Ishmail (1981), 67 Ohio St. 2d 16 ; Perry, supra. Appellant's assertions involving his waiver and the voluntariness of his initial plea bargain are therefore precluded through res judicata since these issues were previously adjudicated in our prior decision of State v. Taylor (Mar. 2, 1987), Butler App. No. CA86-07-117, unreported. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Ishmail
green
1 sentence1990State v. Ishmail (1981), 67 Ohio St. 2d 16 ; Perry, supra. Appellant's assertions involving his waiver and the voluntariness of his initial plea bargain are therefore precluded through res judicata since these issues were previously adjudicated in our prior decision of State v. Taylor (Mar. 2, 1987), Butler App. No. CA86-07-117, unreported. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Lord v. Lord
green
1 sentence1905But from this general statement Lord et al. v. Lord et al., 23 Conn., 327 , should be regarded as a notable exception. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
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.