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 3 courts 2000–2024 2 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. Swaygreen2 sentences2018"The canon in favor of strict construction of criminal statutes is not an obstinate rule which overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose." State v. Sway, 15 Ohio St.3d 112, 116 (1984). {¶ 14} We further reject appellant's argument that given the circumstances surrounding his voluntary termination of the program, his community control violation was technical in nature. {¶ 15} The Eleventh Appellate District recently addressed newly amended R.C. 2929.15(B) in a case where the defendant had overdosed on heroin in violation of the terms of her community control. 2012However, while this is a correct statement of law, see R.C. 2901.04(A), the “canon in favor of strict construction of criminal statutes is not an obstinate rule which overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose.” State v. Sway (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 112, 116 , 472 N.E.2d 1065 , citing United States v. Moore (1975), 423 U.S. 122, 145 , 96 S.Ct. 335 , 46 L.Ed.2d 333 ; see also In re Wood, 10th Dist. | 2 | 10 |
State v. Warnergreen2 sentences2004Moreover, even assuming the rule is penal in nature, "`the canon in favor of strict construction of criminal statutes is not an obstinate rule which overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose.'" State v. Warner (1990), 55 Ohio St.3d 31 , 62 , 564 N.E.2d 18 , 47 (addressing R.C. 2901.04 (A), which holds that criminal statutes are generally strictly construed against the State), quoting United States v. Moore (1975), 423 U.S. 122 , 145 , 96 S.Ct. 335 , 347 , 46 L.Ed.2d 333 . 2004Moreover, even assuming the rule is penal in nature, "`the canon in favor of strict construction of criminal statutes is not an obstinate rule which overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose.'" State v. Warner (1990), 55 Ohio St.3d 31 , 62 , 564 N.E.2d 18 , 47 (addressing R.C. 2901.04 (A), which holds that criminal statutes are generally strictly construed against the State), quoting United States v. Moore (1975), 423 U.S. 122 , 145 , 96 S.Ct. 335 , 347 , 46 L.Ed.2d 333 . | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hurd
green
2 sentences2014Nonetheless, “the canon in favor of strict construction of criminal statutes is not an obstinate rule which overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose.” State v. Hurd, 89 Ohio St.3d 616 , 2000-Ohio-2 , 734 N.E.2d 365 . {¶14} The evident statutory purpose of Section 505.01(c)(3) is to hold a person criminally liable for failing to physically confine a dog on their premises and preventing the dog from escaping. 2014Nonetheless, “the canon in favor of strict construction of criminal statutes is not an obstinate rule which overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose.” State v. Hurd, 89 Ohio St.3d 616 , 2000-Ohio-2 , 734 N.E.2d 365 . {¶14} The evident statutory purpose of Section 505.01(c)(3) is to hold a person criminally liable for failing to physically confine a dog on their premises and preventing the dog from escaping. | 5 | 2001–2014 |
State v. Hurd
neutral
2 sentences2014Nonetheless, “the canon in favor of strict construction of criminal statutes is not an obstinate rule which overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose.” State v. Hurd, 89 Ohio St.3d 616 , 2000-Ohio-2 , 734 N.E.2d 365 . {¶14} The evident statutory purpose of Section 505.01(c)(3) is to hold a person criminally liable for failing to physically confine a dog on their premises and preventing the dog from escaping. 2007While criminal statutes are to be strictly construed against the State, this canon of construction " `is not an obstinate rule which overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose.' " State v. Hurd , 89 Ohio St.3d 616 , 618 , 2000-Ohio-2 , quoting State v. Sway (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 112 , 116 . | 2 | 2007–2014 |
United States v. Moore
green
2 sentences2012However, while this is a correct statement of law, see R.C. 2901.04(A), the “canon in favor of strict construction of criminal statutes is not an obstinate rule which overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose.” State v. Sway (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 112, 116 , 472 N.E.2d 1065 , citing United States v. Moore (1975), 423 U.S. 122, 145 , 96 S.Ct. 335 , 46 L.Ed.2d 333 ; see also In re Wood, 10th Dist. 2012However, while this is a correct statement of law, see R.C. 2901.04(A), the “canon in favor of strict construction of criminal statutes is not an obstinate rule which overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose.” State v. Sway (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 112, 116 , 472 N.E.2d 1065 , citing United States v. Moore (1975), 423 U.S. 122, 145 , 96 S.Ct. 335 , 46 L.Ed.2d 333 ; see also In re Wood, 10th Dist. | 2 | 2004–2012 |
In Re Wood, 06ap-1032 (6-26-2007)
green
1 sentence2012No. 06AP-1032, 2007-Ohio-3224 , 2007 WL 1821691 , ¶ 12. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Wood
green
2 sentences2006State v. Wood (2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 623 , 739 N.E.2d 410 . {¶ 16} The canon in favor of strict construction of criminal statutes is not an obstinate rule that overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose. 2006State v. Wood (2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 623 , 739 N.E.2d 410 . {¶ 16} The canon in favor of strict construction of criminal statutes is not an obstinate rule that overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State ex rel. Herman v. Klopfleisch
green
2 sentences2000Herman v. Klopfleisch (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 581, 584 , 651 N.E.2d 995, 997-998 . {¶ 8} We are further constrained in interpreting R.C. 1707.44(B)(1) by R.C. 2901.04(A), which states that “[s]ections of the Revised Code defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly construed against the state, and liberally construed in favor of the accused.” However, “[t]he canon in favor of strict construction of criminal statutes is not an obstinate rule which overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose.” State v. Sway (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 112, 115 , 15 OBR 265, 268, 472 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 . {¶ 9 2000Herman v. Klopfleisch (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 581, 584 , 651 N.E.2d 995, 997-998 . {¶ 8} We are further constrained in interpreting R.C. 1707.44(B)(1) by R.C. 2901.04(A), which states that “[s]ections of the Revised Code defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly construed against the state, and liberally construed in favor of the accused.” However, “[t]he canon in favor of strict construction of criminal statutes is not an obstinate rule which overrides common sense and evident statutory purpose.” State v. Sway (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 112, 115 , 15 OBR 265, 268, 472 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 . {¶ 9 | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.