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 2011–2022 3 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. Griffingreen2 sentences2018The court rejected Daniels's argument that the one-document rule announced in Baker should apply retroactively, citing State v. Griffin , 138 Ohio St.3d 108 , 2013-Ohio-5481 , 4 N.E.3d 989 , ¶ 49, for the proposition that "res judicata bars litigation of this issue where the court issued a final, appealable order pursuant to the law that existed at that time." 2016-Ohio-8060 , 2016 WL 7157993 , ¶ 7. 2018The court rejected Daniels's argument that the one-document rule announced in Baker should apply retroactively, citing State v. Griffin , 138 Ohio St.3d 108 , 2013-Ohio-5481 , 4 N.E.3d 989 , ¶ 49, for the proposition that "res judicata bars litigation of this issue where the court issued a final, appealable order pursuant to the law that existed at that time." 2016-Ohio-8060 , 2016 WL 7157993 , ¶ 7. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Ketterergreen2 sentences2011State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 , 2010-Ohio-3831 , 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 17 . 2011State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 , 2010-Ohio-3831 , 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 17 . | 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. Baker
green
2 sentences2022The one document rule, as stated in State v. Baker, provides that “[o]nly one document can constitute a final appealable order.” State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 , 2008-Ohio- 3330, ¶ 17. 2021ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ISSUE A FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER AS THE MANNER OF CONVICTIONS ARE STATED IN TWO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS, IN VIOLATION OF THE ONE DOCUMENT RULE UNDER 3 CRIM.R. 32(C), AND THEREFORE THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL FROM THIS CASE. {¶6} Mr. Carter argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court failed to enter a final, appealable order in CR-2018-08-2643-A (case number 29525), as the trial court violated the one document rule set forth in State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 , 2008-Ohio-3330 , ¶ 17. {¶7} “In entering | 10 | 2014–2022 |
State v. Lester
green
2 sentences2021ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ISSUE A FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER AS THE MANNER OF CONVICTIONS ARE STATED IN TWO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS, IN VIOLATION OF THE ONE DOCUMENT RULE UNDER 3 CRIM.R. 32(C), AND THEREFORE THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL FROM THIS CASE. {¶6} Mr. Carter argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court failed to enter a final, appealable order in CR-2018-08-2643-A (case number 29525), as the trial court violated the one document rule set forth in State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 , 2008-Ohio-3330 , ¶ 17. {¶7} “In entering 2021ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ISSUE A FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER AS THE MANNER OF CONVICTIONS ARE STATED IN TWO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS, IN VIOLATION OF THE ONE DOCUMENT RULE UNDER 3 CRIM.R. 32(C), AND THEREFORE THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL FROM THIS CASE. {¶6} Mr. Carter argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court failed to enter a final, appealable order in CR-2018-08-2643-A (case number 29525), as the trial court violated the one document rule set forth in State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 , 2008-Ohio-3330 , ¶ 17. {¶7} “In entering | 3 | 2017–2021 |
State v. Crews
neutral
1 sentence2021Appellant argues that there was both the August 1, 2019 sentencing Entry and the trial court’s February 3, 2021 Order granting the Motion to Dismiss, this Court, in our Opinion filed on June 29, 2020 in State v. Crews, Muskingum App. No. CT2020-0014, 2020-Ohio-3511 , specifically held, in part, that the trial court had issued a final appealable order on August 1, 2019. {¶24} Appellant’s three assignments of error are, therefore, overruled. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. White (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2021Accordingly, “[t]o ensure that the defendant is on notice of when the time to appeal has begun to run, and to avoid disputes regarding the same, clarity [in the language used by the trial court] is required.” State v. White, 156 Ohio St.3d 536 , 2019-Ohio-1215, ¶ 14 . 2021Accordingly, “[t]o ensure that the defendant is on notice of when the time to appeal has begun to run, and to avoid disputes regarding the same, clarity [in the language used by the trial court] is required.” State v. White, 156 Ohio St.3d 536 , 2019-Ohio-1215, ¶ 14 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge
green
2 sentences2020DeWine v. Burge, 128 Ohio St.3d 236 , 2011-Ohio-235, ¶ 17 , quoting State ex rel. 2020DeWine v. Burge, 128 Ohio St.3d 236 , 2011-Ohio-235, ¶ 17 , quoting State ex rel. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2017Highland No. 13CA30, 2014-Ohio-5110 , ¶ 10: Sexual offender classifications are civil in nature, State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , 2007–Ohio–2202, syllabus, and thus constitute separate proceedings when not coupled with an initial conviction and sentence. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Straley
green
1 sentence2017Highland No. 13CA30, 2014-Ohio-5110 , ¶ 10: Sexual offender classifications are civil in nature, State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , 2007–Ohio–2202, syllabus, and thus constitute separate proceedings when not coupled with an initial conviction and sentence. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Dunn v. Smith
green
2 sentences2011Adams App. No. 10CA903 4 the trial court requesting a revised sentencing entry.” Dunn v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 364 , 2008-Ohio-4565 , 894 N.E.2d 312, at ¶8 . 2011Adams App. No. 10CA903 4 the trial court requesting a revised sentencing entry.” Dunn v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 364 , 2008-Ohio-4565 , 894 N.E.2d 312, at ¶8 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.