107 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 26 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. Kappergreen2 sentences2020Cuyahoga No. 98680, 2013-Ohio-826 , and State v. Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 36, 37-38 , 448 N.E.2d 823 (1983) (finding the trial court’s consideration of the state’s untimely brief in opposition to the defendant’s petition for postconviction relief was harmless because the defendant failed to provide evidence of sufficient operative facts demonstrating a cognizable claim of a constitutional error). 2020Cuyahoga No. 98680, 2013-Ohio-826 , and State v. Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 36, 37-38 , 448 N.E.2d 823 (1983) (finding the trial court’s consideration of the state’s untimely brief in opposition to the defendant’s petition for postconviction relief was harmless because the defendant failed to provide evidence of sufficient operative facts demonstrating a cognizable claim of a constitutional error). | 2 | 20 |
Feldman v. Law Enforcement Associates Corp.green2 sentences2025See, e.g., Feldman v. Law Enforcement Associates Corp., 752 F.3d 339, 344 (4th Cir. 2014). [Redding] does not allege he was engaged in a protected activity when he filed complaints with the FAA or when he was denied membership. 2023See, e.g., Feldman v. Law Enforcement Associates Corp., 752 F.3d 339, 344 (4th Cir.2014). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Perrygreen2 sentences2006Specifically, he has argued that: (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to research and properly advise him of a double jeopardy issue; and (2) his constitutional right pursuant to the double jeopardy clause was violated when he was prosecuted for theft of a truck for which he had already been convicted of receiving in another county (collectively the "Errors"). {¶ 4} "A petitioner for post-conviction relief has an initial burden of providing evidence of sufficient operative facts to demonstrate a cognizable claim of a constitutional error." State v. McN 2006Specifically, he has argued that: (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to research and properly advise him of a double jeopardy issue; and (2) his constitutional right pursuant to the double jeopardy clause was violated when he was prosecuted for theft of a truck for which he had already been convicted of receiving in another county (collectively the "Errors"). {¶ 4} "A petitioner for post-conviction relief has an initial burden of providing evidence of sufficient operative facts to demonstrate a cognizable claim of a constitutional error." State v. McN | 1 | 8 |
State v. McNeillgreen2 sentences2015In light of this gatekeeping role, the Supreme Court of Ohio has previously declared that “a trial court properly denies a defendant’s petition for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing where the petition, the supporting affidavits, the documentary evidence, the files, and the records do not demonstrate petitioner set forth sufficient operative facts to establish substantive grounds for relief.” Calhoun at paragraph two of the syllabus; accord State v. McNeill, 137 Ohio App.3d 34, 40 (9th Dist.2000) (“A petitioner for post-conviction relief has an initial burden of provi 2006Specifically, he has argued that: (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to research and properly advise him of a double jeopardy issue; and (2) his constitutional right pursuant to the double jeopardy clause was violated when he was prosecuted for theft of a truck for which he had already been convicted of receiving in another county (collectively the "Errors"). {¶ 4} "A petitioner for post-conviction relief has an initial burden of providing evidence of sufficient operative facts to demonstrate a cognizable claim of a constitutional error." State v. McN | 1 | 4 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2026Id. 2021Franklin No. 21AP-16, 2021-Ohio-3899, ¶ 15 (“To warrant an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner bears the initial burden of providing evidence that demonstrates a cognizable claim of constitutional error.”). {¶19} “Under Ohio law, ‘a properly licensed attorney is presumed to carry out his duties in a competent manner.’” State v. Harvey, 3d Dist. | 1 | 2 |
Park v. Ambrosegreen2 sentences2002Park v. Ambrose (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 179 , 183 , 619 N.E.2d 469 , 472 , fn. 1. {¶ 15} "We hold today that in order to present a cognizable claim for back support, an action for support or an action which triggers the duty to support must have been commenced during the child's minority when the legal duty to support exists. 2002Park v. Ambrose (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 179 , 183 , 619 N.E.2d 469 , 472 , fn. 1. {¶ 15} "We hold today that in order to present a cognizable claim for back support, an action for support or an action which triggers the duty to support must have been commenced during the child's minority when the legal duty to support exists. | 1 | 2 |
Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshallgreen2 sentences1995The court chose the “zone of danger” test as the proper test to be applied in determining whether, as a threshold matter, a plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim under the FELA. 512 U.S. at-, 114 S.Ct. at 2410 , 129 L.Ed.2d at 447 . 1995The court chose the “zone of danger” test as the proper test to be applied in determining whether, as a threshold matter, a plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim under the FELA. 512 U.S. at-, 114 S.Ct. at 2410 , 129 L.Ed.2d at 447 . | 1 | 2 |
Thompson v. Donnelly (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2026See Thompson v. Donnelly, 2018-Ohio-4073, ¶ 6 (holding that direct appeal was an adequate remedy to challenge voluntariness of plea). {¶ 10} Because Wright has failed to state a cognizable claim in mandamus, the Twelfth District correctly granted the clerk’s motion to dismiss. | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. McConahaygreen1 sentence2026See Bell v. McConahay, 2023-Ohio-693, ¶ 10-12 (habeas petitioner had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law to raise claims that he was denied his constitutional rights of due process and effective assistance of counsel and to challenge trial court’s alleged failure to conduct plea colloquy). {¶ 17} Because Wright failed to state a cognizable claim in mandamus, the Tenth District correctly granted the clerk’s motion to dismiss, and we therefore affirm the Tenth District’s judgment dismissing Wright’s petition. | 1 | 1 |
Colon v. Fortune, 89527 (2-14-2008)green1 sentence2026The court then concluded that Appellants’ complaint must be dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), failure to state a cognizable claim. {¶15} “An appellate court applies a de novo standard of review to dismissals for failure to comply with Civ.R. 10(D).” Colon v. Fortune, 2008-Ohio-576, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.). {¶16} Appellants clearly did not comply with Civ.R. 10(D). | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Kelleygreen1 sentence2026Law and Analysis In his sole assignment of error, Dr. Joy argues that the trial court erred in granting MetroHealth’s motion for judgment on the pleadings since the “complaint alleged facts that, when assumed as true, supported a cognizable claim for retaliatory termination in violation of [MetroHealth’s] policies and . . . public policy.” A motion for judgment on the pleadings only presents questions of law and tests “the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted.” Crenshaw v. Howard, 2022-Ohio-3914, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing Edwards v. Kelley, 2021-Ohio-2933, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Crenshaw v. Howardgreen1 sentence2026Law and Analysis In his sole assignment of error, Dr. Joy argues that the trial court erred in granting MetroHealth’s motion for judgment on the pleadings since the “complaint alleged facts that, when assumed as true, supported a cognizable claim for retaliatory termination in violation of [MetroHealth’s] policies and . . . public policy.” A motion for judgment on the pleadings only presents questions of law and tests “the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted.” Crenshaw v. Howard, 2022-Ohio-3914, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing Edwards v. Kelley, 2021-Ohio-2933, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lei, Unpublished Decision (5-25-2006)green1 sentence2026State v. Lei, 2006-Ohio-2608, ¶ 25 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Robinson v. Pagegreen2 sentences2025The magistrate assigned to the case issued a decision recommending that the county’s motion be granted because Robinson had not articulated a cognizable claim in mandamus or prohibition and because his complaint did not meet the filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). 2024-Ohio-4468, ¶ 24 and 34-35 (10th Dist.). 2025The magistrate assigned to the case issued a decision recommending that the county’s motion be granted because Robinson had not articulated a cognizable claim in mandamus or prohibition and because his complaint did not meet the filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). 2024-Ohio-4468, ¶ 24, 34-35 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Turner, Unpublished Decision (3-19-2004)green1 sentence2025See also State v. Roberts, 2011-Ohio-2534, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.) and State v. Turner, 2004-Ohio-1545, ¶ 108 (7th Dist.) (“[T]he issue of whether the delay in the appeal violated an appellant’s due process right is a cognizable claim on direct appeal.”). {¶ 15} Upon review, Bulger argues that his right to due process was denied and he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because the trial court did not mention appointing appellate counsel at his sentencing hearing, and his appointed trial counsel did not file a timely appeal on his behalf. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harris, 07ap-972 (6-12-2008)green1 sentence2025Canas at ¶ 12 , citing State v. Harris, 2008-Ohio-2837, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.). {¶ 9} Generally, we review the trial court’s denial of a petition for postconviction relief without a hearing for an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robertsgreen1 sentence2025See also State v. Roberts, 2011-Ohio-2534, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.) and State v. Turner, 2004-Ohio-1545, ¶ 108 (7th Dist.) (“[T]he issue of whether the delay in the appeal violated an appellant’s due process right is a cognizable claim on direct appeal.”). {¶ 15} Upon review, Bulger argues that his right to due process was denied and he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because the trial court did not mention appointing appellate counsel at his sentencing hearing, and his appointed trial counsel did not file a timely appeal on his behalf. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hattongreen2 sentences2024See State v. Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362, 2022-Ohio-783, 192 N.E.3d 470, ¶ 20; State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446, 2022-Ohio-3991, 205 N.E.3d 513, ¶ 37. 2024See State v. Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362, 2022-Ohio-783, 192 N.E.3d 470, ¶ 20; State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446, 2022-Ohio-3991, 205 N.E.3d 513, ¶ 37. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bethel (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2024See State v. Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362, 2022-Ohio-783, 192 N.E.3d 470, ¶ 20; State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446, 2022-Ohio-3991, 205 N.E.3d 513, ¶ 37. 2024See State v. Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362, 2022-Ohio-783, 192 N.E.3d 470, ¶ 20; State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446, 2022-Ohio-3991, 205 N.E.3d 513, ¶ 37. | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Norris v. Wainwright (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2024Norris v. Wainwright, 158 Ohio St.3d 20 , 2019-Ohio-4138, ¶ 9 (“If a petitioner claims he is entitled to an earlier release date but not to immediate release from prison, he does not state a cognizable claim in habeas corpus.”). | 1 | 1 |
Fortner v. Thomasgreen1 sentence2023See Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14 (1970) (“It has been long and well established that it is the duty of every judicial tribunal to decide actual controversies between parties legitimately affected by specific facts and to render judgments which can be carried into effect.”) {¶14} Appellants further posit that but for the Amendment passed at the Special Meeting, Appellant Cody Barack would have been elected to the Board at the Annual Meeting. | 1 | 1 |
| Hynd v. Roeschgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Doner v. Snappgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Newell v. Rolling Hills Apartmentsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Malone v. Lanegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lewis v. Chapingreen | 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. Jackson
green
2 sentences2019Id., citing State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , * * *. {¶19} “To warrant a hearing, a petitioner must first provide evidence which demonstrates a cognizable claim of constitutional error. 2018State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107 . {¶5} “To warrant a hearing, a petitioner must first provide evidence which demonstrates a cognizable claim of constitutional error. | 22 | 2005–2023 |
Marquez v. United States
green
2 sentences2001State v. Kapper (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 36 , 37-38 , certiorari denied (1983), 464 U.S. 856 , 104 S.Ct. 174 . 2001State v. Kapper (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 36 , 37-38 , certiorari denied (1983), 464 U.S. 856 , 104 S.Ct. 174 . | 6 | 1998–2001 |
Bruni v. Tatsumi
green
2 sentences2013Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127 , 346 N.E.2d 673 (1976). {¶25} In Bruni, the Ohio Supreme Court explained a plaintiff’s burden as follows: Under Ohio law, as it has developed, in order to establish medical malpractice, it must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury complained of was caused by the doing of some particular thing or things that a physician or surgeon of ordinary skill, care and diligence would not have done under like or similar conditions or circumstances, or by the failure or commission to do some particular thing or things that such a physician or surg 2000In order to establish a cognizable claim of medical malpractice, "it must be shown by a preponderance of evidence that the injury complained of was caused by the doing of some particular thing or things that a physician or surgeon of ordinary skill, care and diligence would not have done under like or similar conditions or circumstances, or by the failure or omission to do some particular thing or things that such a physician or surgeon would have done under like or similar conditions and circumstances, and that the injury complained of was the direct and proximate result of such doing or fail | 5 | 1993–2013 |
Rose v. Moore
green
2 sentences2006Specifically, he has argued that: (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to research and properly advise him of a double jeopardy issue; and (2) his constitutional right pursuant to the double jeopardy clause was violated when he was prosecuted for theft of a truck for which he had already been convicted of receiving in another county (collectively the "Errors"). {¶ 4} "A petitioner for post-conviction relief has an initial burden of providing evidence of sufficient operative facts to demonstrate a cognizable claim of a constitutional error." State v. McN 2006This appeal, filed subsequent to Defendant's direct appeal, asserts a jurisdictional defect and thus shall be treated as a motion for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 . {¶ 7} "A petitioner for post-conviction relief has an initial burden of providing evidence of sufficient operative facts to demonstrate a cognizable claim of a constitutional error." State v. McNeill (2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 34 , 40 , 738 N.E.2d 23 , appeal not allowed (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 1453 , certiorari denied (2000), 531 U.S. 1041 . | 3 | 2003–2006 |
Ronnie L. Chatman v. James Slagle, Richard Unger
green
2 sentences1999Heck v. Humphrey (1994), 512 U.S. 477 , 486-87 ; Chatman v. Slagle (6th Cir. 1997), 107 F.3d 380 , 382 . 1999Heck v. Humphrey (1994), 512 U.S. 477 , 486-87 ; Chatman v. Slagle (6th Cir. 1997), 107 F.3d 380 , 382 . | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Heck v. Humphrey
green
2 sentences1999Heck v. Humphrey (1994), 512 U.S. 477 , 486-87 ; Chatman v. Slagle (6th Cir. 1997), 107 F.3d 380 , 382 . 1999Heck v. Humphrey (1994), 512 U.S. 477 , 486-87 ; Chatman v. Slagle (6th Cir. 1997), 107 F.3d 380 , 382 . | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Bunch
green
1 sentence2026State v. Bunch, 2022-Ohio-4723, ¶ 23 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2024“Constitutional Error” {¶ 47} Johnson argues that he adequately raised a cognizable claim of constitutional error through Keith’s affidavit, which he says establishes that Keith committed perjury at his trial and that the perjured testimony was a result of police coercion and pressure to misidentify Johnson as the attacker, and he argues that the 19 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO state’s failure to disclose that coercion violated the Supreme Court of the United States’s holding in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 2024“Constitutional Error” {¶ 47} Johnson argues that he adequately raised a cognizable claim of constitutional error through Keith’s affidavit, which he says establishes that Keith committed perjury at his trial and that the perjured testimony was a result of police coercion and pressure to misidentify Johnson as the attacker, and he argues that the 19 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO state’s failure to disclose that coercion violated the Supreme Court of the United States’s holding in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Calhoun
green
2 sentences2024State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 282-283 , 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999).” State v. McFeeture, 159 Ohio St.3d 1468 , 2020-Ohio-3885 , 150 N.E.3d 123 . 2024State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 282-283 , 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999).” State v. McFeeture, 159 Ohio St.3d 1468 , 2020-Ohio-3885 , 150 N.E.3d 123 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State ex rel. Payne v. Rose green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Smith v. Smith green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Harvey green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. West neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Steffen green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Johnson v. Crutchfield (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| George Jones v. Select Portfolio Servicing green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Byers DiPaola Castle, L.L.C. v. Portage Cty. Commrs. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Salata v. Vallas green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Gondor green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Yvonne C. Edwards v. Nathan Habib green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| W.W.G. Corp. v. Hughes neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Blakemore v. Blakemore green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Bradley v. Sprenger Enterprises, Inc., 07ca009238 (4-28-2008) green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Farmer v. Brennan green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Tucker v. Collins green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State ex rel. Nagle v. Olin green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Rakas v. Illinois green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Tibbetts green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Mitchell v. Mitchell green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Szefcyk green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Harris v. Ron Champion green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| United States v. Jerry Lee Smith green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Norman Simmons v. Edward F. Reynolds, Superintendent, Oneida Correctional Facility, and the People of the State of New York green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Authority, Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Roberts v. Luebbers green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State ex rel. Beaver v. Konteh green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Richardson neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Hartmann v. Duffey green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Cheren green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.