Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Hymoregreen1 sentence2020Therefore, we must determine whether the officer should have been permitted to testify regarding the administration and related conclusions regarding the HGN test. 7 {¶21} The two issues presented for review and argument in Beavers’ third assignment of error are whether the HGN test was relevant under the rules of evidence and whether expert testimony was necessary to present HGN evidence. {¶22} “‘The trial court has broad discretion in the admission and exclusion of evidence.’” Dean, supra, at ¶29 , quoting State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 122, 128 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
Ornelas v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015As the United States Supreme Court held in Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 (1996), "…as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal." {¶9} Appellant challenges the results of the breathalyzer test because the state did not prove that he did not intake chewing tobacco or "snuff" within twenty minutes of the administration of the test, and Trooper Milburn failed to observe him for the required twenty minute period prior to the administration of the test. 2015As the United States Supreme Court held in Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 (1996), "…as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal." {¶9} Appellant challenges the results of the breathalyzer test because the state did not prove that he did not intake chewing tobacco or "snuff" within twenty minutes of the administration of the test, and Trooper Milburn failed to observe him for the required twenty minute period prior to the administration of the test. | 1 | 1 |
Henize v. Gilesgreen2 sentences2013Accord Henize v. Giles, 22 Ohio St.3d 213, 217 , 490 N.E.2d 585 (1986) (“With this authority [to control the practice of law] is the concomitant responsibility to protect the public by preventing the unauthorized practice of law, while at the same time not exercising this authority so rigidly that the public good suffers”). {¶ 31} This background demonstrates that there is ample precedent for exercising deference to laws or policies that, in properly limited contexts, authorize nonlawyers to engage in activities that fall into the broad category of the practice of law. 2013Accord Henize v. Giles, 22 Ohio St.3d 213, 217 , 490 N.E.2d 585 (1986) (“With this authority [to control the practice of law] is the concomitant responsibility to protect the public by preventing the unauthorized practice of law, while at the same time not exercising this authority so rigidly that the public good suffers”). {¶ 31} This background demonstrates that there is ample precedent for exercising deference to laws or policies that, in properly limited contexts, authorize nonlawyers to engage in activities that fall into the broad category of the practice of law. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Defiance v. Kretz
green
2 sentences2007Defiance v. Kretz (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 1 , 3 . 2006Defiance v. Kretz (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 1 , 3 , 573 N.E.2d 32 ; State v. Plummer (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 490 N.E.2d 902 ; see, also, R.C. 4511.19 (D)(1). | 3 | 2001–2007 |
State v. Bresson
green
2 sentences2022Smith maintains that the latter evidence could not be used to sustain a finding that he was under the influence of alcohol because Trooper Foster did not testify to “the specific administration of the test[s]” and because Trooper Foster was “impermissibly allowed to testify that [his] BAC was somewhere between .08 and .17.” Smith contends that Trooper Foster’s testimony was “problematic considering the HGN [and VGN] test[s] [were] the only test[s] conducted and [were] conducted -22- Case No. 4-21-10 more than five hours after the [crash].” According to Smith, the tests might have demonstrated 2022Smith maintains that the latter evidence could not be used to sustain a finding that he was under the influence of alcohol because Trooper Foster did not testify to “the specific administration of the test[s]” and because Trooper Foster was “impermissibly allowed to testify that [his] BAC was somewhere between .08 and .17.” Smith contends that Trooper Foster’s testimony was “problematic considering the HGN [and VGN] test[s] [were] the only test[s] conducted and [were] conducted -22- Case No. 4-21-10 more than five hours after the [crash].” According to Smith, the tests might have demonstrated | 2 | 2004–2022 |
State v. Plummer
green
2 sentences2006Defiance v. Kretz (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 1 , 3 , 573 N.E.2d 32 ; State v. Plummer (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 490 N.E.2d 902 ; see, also, R.C. 4511.19 (D)(1). 2006Defiance v. Kretz (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 1 , 3 , 573 N.E.2d 32 ; State v. Plummer (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 490 N.E.2d 902 ; see, also, R.C. 4511.19 (D)(1). | 2 | 2001–2006 |
State v. Dean, 2007-P-0025 (12-21-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2020Therefore, we must determine whether the officer should have been permitted to testify regarding the administration and related conclusions regarding the HGN test. 7 {¶21} The two issues presented for review and argument in Beavers’ third assignment of error are whether the HGN test was relevant under the rules of evidence and whether expert testimony was necessary to present HGN evidence. {¶22} “‘The trial court has broad discretion in the admission and exclusion of evidence.’” Dean, supra, at ¶29 , quoting State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 122, 128 (1967). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Howard
green
2 sentences2018A Howard charge (State v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d 18 , 537 N.E.2d 188 (1989)) was given to the jury but the circumstances that prompted the administration of that instruction are not made clear in the record. 2018A Howard charge (State v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d 18 , 537 N.E.2d 188 (1989)) was given to the jury but the circumstances that prompted the administration of that instruction are not made clear in the record. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Burnside
green
1 sentence2009State v. Burnside , 100 Ohio St.3d 152 , 2003-Ohio-5372 , at _8. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Hall
green
2 sentences2007Appellant relies on this Court's decisions in State v. Robinson , 160 Ohio App.3d 802 , 2005-Ohio-2280 , 828 N.E.2d 1050 and State v. Hall , 163 Ohio App.3d 90 , 2005-Ohio-4271 , 836 N.E.2d 614 which held that HGN test results were not admissible absent strict compliance with the testing procedures. {¶ 17} R.C. 4511.19 to provide, in pertinent part: {¶ 18} "In any criminal prosecution * * * for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section, * * * if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown 2007Appellant relies on this Court's decisions in State v. Robinson , 160 Ohio App.3d 802 , 2005-Ohio-2280 , 828 N.E.2d 1050 and State v. Hall , 163 Ohio App.3d 90 , 2005-Ohio-4271 , 836 N.E.2d 614 which held that HGN test results were not admissible absent strict compliance with the testing procedures. {¶ 17} R.C. 4511.19 to provide, in pertinent part: {¶ 18} "In any criminal prosecution * * * for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section, * * * if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2007Appellant relies on this Court's decisions in State v. Robinson , 160 Ohio App.3d 802 , 2005-Ohio-2280 , 828 N.E.2d 1050 and State v. Hall , 163 Ohio App.3d 90 , 2005-Ohio-4271 , 836 N.E.2d 614 which held that HGN test results were not admissible absent strict compliance with the testing procedures. {¶ 17} R.C. 4511.19 to provide, in pertinent part: {¶ 18} "In any criminal prosecution * * * for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section, * * * if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown 2007Appellant relies on this Court's decisions in State v. Robinson , 160 Ohio App.3d 802 , 2005-Ohio-2280 , 828 N.E.2d 1050 and State v. Hall , 163 Ohio App.3d 90 , 2005-Ohio-4271 , 836 N.E.2d 614 which held that HGN test results were not admissible absent strict compliance with the testing procedures. {¶ 17} R.C. 4511.19 to provide, in pertinent part: {¶ 18} "In any criminal prosecution * * * for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section, * * * if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Souel
green
1 sentence2000Hence, his ninth assignment of error is meritless because the stipulations under Souel , supra , were met. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Finch
green
2 sentences1998State v. Finch (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 38, 40 , 24 OBR 61, 63-64, 492 N.E.2d 1254, 1256-1257 . 1998State v. Finch (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 38, 40 , 24 OBR 61, 63-64, 492 N.E.2d 1254, 1256-1257 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Siegwald v. Curry
green
2 sentences1994Siegwald v. Curry (1974), 40 Ohio App.2d 313 , 69 O.O.2d 293 , 319 N.E.2d 381 . 1994Siegwald v. Curry (1974), 40 Ohio App.2d 313 , 69 O.O.2d 293 , 319 N.E.2d 381 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
City of Cincinnati v. Sand
green
1 sentence1990Cincinnati v. Sand (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 79 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.