16 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 6 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. Holegreen1 sentence2026Cowans, 2024-Ohio-1811, ¶ 2 (10th Dist.).5 As relevant to this appeal, the trainer in Cowans challenged the Commission’s decision as not being in accordance with law because of failure to issue a proper notice of opportunity for a hearing, failure to consider the trainer’s objections to the hearing officer’s report and recommendation, and because the hearing examiner construed the return of the race purse as a mandatory penalty. | 1 | 1 |
Flynn v. Flynn, Unpublished Decision (7-22-2004)green1 sentence2026In exercising its authority to take additional evidence, the “trial court’s discretion must be exercised in a manner which best protects the interest of the child.” Flynn v. Flynn, 2004-Ohio-3881, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.) Given the significance of the additional information submitted by the GAL as to who may be a suitable supervisor for Father’s visits with A.J., the trial court should have permitted the parties to argue their positions and permit the parties to cross-examine the GAL on his updated recommendation. | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Bakergreen1 sentence2024See Baker v. Baker, 2021-Ohio-3442, ¶ 8, 16 (9th Dist.) (reversing the trial court’s judgment without having a transcript of the hearing on objections). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2013State v. Smith, 87 Ohio St.3d 424, 442 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2007See Glover , 35 Ohio St.3d at 19 -20 , citing Washington , 434 U.S. at 511 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Glovergreen1 sentence2007See Glover , 35 Ohio St.3d at 19 -20 , citing Washington , 434 U.S. at 511 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re M.W. Children
green
2 sentences2023Hamilton No. C-180623, 2019-Ohio-948, ¶ 38 . 2023Id. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
In re K.S.
green
1 sentence2022Hamilton No. C-190754, 2020-Ohio-6863, ¶ 9 . “[T]he crux of the analysis is whether the party was put on notice that they would be reasonably expected to introduce the evidence at the hearing before the magistrate. * * * If the party had notice that they would be reasonably expected to introduce evidence on the subject, then the trial court has discretion to accept or reject that evidence.” Maddox v. Maddox, 2016-Ohio-2908 , 65 N.E.3d 88 , ¶ 15 (1st Dist.). {¶19} The parents assert that an affidavit filed two days before the objections hearing, attaching a volley of emails between counsel, sho | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Maddox v. Maddox
green
1 sentence2022Hamilton No. C-190754, 2020-Ohio-6863, ¶ 9 . “[T]he crux of the analysis is whether the party was put on notice that they would be reasonably expected to introduce the evidence at the hearing before the magistrate. * * * If the party had notice that they would be reasonably expected to introduce evidence on the subject, then the trial court has discretion to accept or reject that evidence.” Maddox v. Maddox, 2016-Ohio-2908 , 65 N.E.3d 88 , ¶ 15 (1st Dist.). {¶19} The parents assert that an affidavit filed two days before the objections hearing, attaching a volley of emails between counsel, sho | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2008But the court did find him to be a sexually oriented offender. {¶ 12} It is from this judgment that Nagy appeals, raising three assignments of error for our review: {¶ 13} "[1.] The trial court erred when it ruled that Defendant-Appellant was a sexually-oriented offender although he was not convicted of a sexual offense. {¶ 14} "[2.] The trial court erred when it allowed the prosecutor to read from the original Cleveland police department homicide file which was not in evidence. {¶ 15} "[3.] The trial court erred when it directly questioned and interrogated Appellant in spite of the objections | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Atkinson v. International Technegroup, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005Technegroup, Inc. (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 349 , 365 . {¶ 39} During deliberations, the jury foreman passed a note to the bailiff stating the following: "Under involuntary manslaughter — elements of the offense, please clarify the second sentence, especially the word `proximate' as used[.]" In response to the question, and over the objections of defense counsel, the court provided an additional written instruction to the jury. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Pierce v. Brushart
green
2 sentences2005Pierce v. Brushart (1950), 153 Ohio St. 372 , 41 O.O. 398 , 92 N.E.2d 4 . 2005Pierce v. Brushart (1950), 153 Ohio St. 372 , 41 O.O. 398 , 92 N.E.2d 4 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Inman v. Inman
green
2 sentences2005Thus, this short time frame between the objections hearing and the trial Court’s entry is not as suspect as the short time between the filing of objections and the court’s adoption of the referee’s report in Inman, supra, 101 Ohio App.3d 115 , 655 N.E.2d 199 . 2005Thus, this short time frame between the objections hearing and the trial Court’s entry is not as suspect as the short time between the filing of objections and the court’s adoption of the referee’s report in Inman, supra, 101 Ohio App.3d 115 , 655 N.E.2d 199 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Ohio v. Hymore
green
1 sentence2004Appellant's first assignment of error lacks merit. {¶ 28} In the second assignment of error, appellant maintains that the trial court erred when it allowed several exhibits to be entered into evidence over the objections of defense counsel. {¶ 29} "[A] trial court has broad discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence and unless it has clearly abused its discretion and the defendant has been materially prejudiced thereby, this court should be slow to interfere." State v. Hymore (1967), 9 Ohio St.2d 122 , 128 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. George
green
1 sentence2004Courts examining the issuance of a warrant are directed to, "* * * ensure that the magistrate [or judge] had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed." State v. George (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 325 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Blakemore v. Blakemore
green
1 sentence2003"The term `abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 . {¶ 8} In appellant's first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by failing to rule that the board of examiners erred by failing to consider and rule on the objections to the hearing officer's report filed by appellant pursuant to R.C. 119.09 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories
green
1 sentence1999The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that "[w]hen portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm." Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 199 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
green
2 sentences1995Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986), 475 U.S. 673, 679 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1435 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 683 . 1995Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986), 475 U.S. 673, 679 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1435 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 683 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.