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 1985–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Paytongreen2 sentences2023See Brown at ¶ 65; see also State v. Payton, 119 Ohio App.3d 694, 704 , 696 N.E.2d 240 (11th Dist.1997) (“[w]here there exist reasonable grounds for filing a motion to suppress, counsel’s failure to file the motion may constitute ineffective assistance and warrant reversal.”). 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶20} M.D. argues that he unambiguously requested an attorney. 2023See Brown at ¶ 65; see also State v. Payton, 119 Ohio App.3d 694, 704 , 696 N.E.2d 240 (11th Dist.1997) (“[w]here there exist reasonable grounds for filing a motion to suppress, counsel’s failure to file the motion may constitute ineffective assistance and warrant reversal.”). 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶20} M.D. argues that he unambiguously requested an attorney. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Renner v. Tuscarawas County Board of Revision
neutral
2 sentences1999Bd. of Revision (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 142 , 144 : If the omitted requirement runs to the core of procedural efficiency, then the requirement is essential, the omission is not substantial compliance with the statute, and the appeal is to be dismissed. 1998Bd. of Revision (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 142 , 572 N.E.2d 56 , a property valuation case, this court explained the Akron Standard decision: “If the omitted requirement runs to the core of procedural efficiency, then the requirement is essential, the omission is not substantial compliance with the Statute, and the appeal is to be dismissed.” Renner, 59 Ohio St.3d at 144 , 572 N.E.2d at 57 . | 6 | 1998–2005 |
Akron Standard Division of Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Lindley
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 12 . {¶ 15} In explaining the core of procedural efficiency standard, the the Ohio Supreme Court subsequently held: "If the omitted requirement runs to the core of procedural efficiency, then the requirement is essential, the omission is not substantial compliance with the statute, and the appeal is to be dismissed." Renner v. Tuscarawas Cty. 1993In Akron Standard Div. v. Lindley (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 10 , 11 OBR 9, 462 N.E.2d 419 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that if an omitted requirement in a reassessment petition runs to the core of procedural efficiency, the appeal is to be dismissed because substantial compliance with the requirements of the applicable statute has not taken place. | 2 | 1993–2005 |
Scioto Bank v. Columbus Union Stock Yards
green
2 sentences2020Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00180 21 28, 1980), citing Scioto Bank v. Columbus Union Stock Yards, 120 Ohio App. 55, 59 , 201 N.E.2d 227 (10th Dist. 1963). {¶48} Without a complete record of the hearing in the trial court, we presume that the omitted hearing that occurred prior to the start of trial on October 17, 2019 supports the trial court’s decision. 2020Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00180 21 28, 1980), citing Scioto Bank v. Columbus Union Stock Yards, 120 Ohio App. 55, 59 , 201 N.E.2d 227 (10th Dist. 1963). {¶48} Without a complete record of the hearing in the trial court, we presume that the omitted hearing that occurred prior to the start of trial on October 17, 2019 supports the trial court’s decision. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Johnson, Unpublished Decision (10-2-2006)
neutral
1 sentence2007A mistrial should not be granted `merely because some minor error or irregularity has arisen.' Id., citing State v. Reynolds (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 27 , 33." State v. Johnson , Butler App. No. CA2005-10-422, 2006-Ohio-5195 , at ¶ 36 . {¶ 130} Here, appellant failed to raise a timely objection to the omitted instruction as required under Crim.R. 30(A) and, therefore, is deemed to have waived all but plain error. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Reynolds
green
1 sentence2007A mistrial should not be granted `merely because some minor error or irregularity has arisen.' Id., citing State v. Reynolds (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 27 , 33." State v. Johnson , Butler App. No. CA2005-10-422, 2006-Ohio-5195 , at ¶ 36 . {¶ 130} Here, appellant failed to raise a timely objection to the omitted instruction as required under Crim.R. 30(A) and, therefore, is deemed to have waived all but plain error. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Franklin
green
1 sentence2007A mistrial should not be granted `merely because some minor error or irregularity has arisen.' Id., citing State v. Reynolds (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 27 , 33." State v. Johnson , Butler App. No. CA2005-10-422, 2006-Ohio-5195 , at ¶ 36 . {¶ 130} Here, appellant failed to raise a timely objection to the omitted instruction as required under Crim.R. 30(A) and, therefore, is deemed to have waived all but plain error. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Chambers v. Chambers
green
2 sentences2005Chambers v. Chambers (2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 355, 359 , 738 N.E.2d 834 , citing State ex rel. 2005Chambers v. Chambers (2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 355, 359 , 738 N.E.2d 834 , citing State ex rel. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Long
green
1 sentence2003Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 44} Upon review of the instructions to the jury, we find the trial court's failure to instruct as asserted by appellant did not constitute plain error. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. DePew
green
2 sentences1988State v. DePew (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 275, 289 , 528 N.E. 2d 542, 557 . 1988State v. DePew (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 275, 289 , 528 N.E. 2d 542, 557 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hoover v. Sumlin
green
2 sentences1987As it is stated in Hoover v. Sumlin (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 1, 5-6 , 12 OBR 1, 5, 465 N.E. 2d 377 , 381: “We hold today merely that a party may appropriately raise an affirmative defense in an amended pleading. 1987As it is stated in Hoover v. Sumlin (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 1, 5-6 , 12 OBR 1, 5, 465 N.E. 2d 377 , 381: “We hold today merely that a party may appropriately raise an affirmative defense in an amended pleading. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Mullins v. Whiteway Manufacturing Co.
green
1 sentence1985Mullins, supra, at 20 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.