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 1 courts 2008–2026 13 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. Butchergreen2 sentences2026“A defendant establishes a prima facie speedy trial violation when his motion [to dismiss] reveals that a trial did not occur within the time period prescribed by R.C. 2945.71.” State v. Hill, 2020-Ohio-2958, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Butcher, 27 Ohio St.3d 28, 31 (1986). 2025“A defendant establishes a prima facie speedy trial violation when his motion [to dismiss] reveals that a trial did not occur within the time period prescribed by R.C. 2945.71.” State v. Hill, 2020-Ohio-2958, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Butcher, 27 Ohio St.3d 28, 31 (1986). | 10 | 13 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2026“A defendant establishes a prima facie speedy trial violation when his motion [to dismiss] reveals that a trial did not occur within the time period prescribed by R.C. 2945.71.” State v. Hill, 2020-Ohio-2958, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Butcher, 27 Ohio St.3d 28, 31 (1986). 2025“A defendant establishes a prima facie speedy trial violation when his motion [to dismiss] reveals that a trial did not occur within the time period prescribed by R.C. 2945.71.” State v. Hill, 2020-Ohio-2958, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Butcher, 27 Ohio St.3d 28, 31 (1986). | 9 | 10 |
State v. Wagnergreen2 sentences2025“If a defendant ‘establishes a prima facie case of a violation of his right to a speedy trial, the burden then shifts to the State’ to demonstrate either that the statutory limit was not exceeded, or that the State’s time to bring the defendant to trial was properly extended.” State v. Wagner, 2021-Ohio-1671, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Nichols, 2005-Ohio-1771, ¶ 11 (5th Dist.), citing Butcher at 30- 31. i. Case Nos. 21-CR-739 and 22-CR-57 {¶ 44} According to Little, his statutory speedy trial time in Case Nos. 21-CR-739 and 22-CR-57 was not extended by the December 2022 mistrial because 2025“If a defendant ‘establishes a prima facie case of a violation of his right to a speedy trial, the burden then shifts to the State’ to demonstrate either that the statutory limit was not exceeded, or that the State’s time to bring the defendant to trial was properly extended.” State v. Wagner, 2021-Ohio-1671, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Nichols, 2005- Ohio-1771, ¶ 11 (5th Dist.). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Nichols, Unpublished Decision (4-13-2005)green2 sentences2025“If a defendant ‘establishes a prima facie case of a violation of his right to a speedy trial, the burden then shifts to the State’ to demonstrate either that the statutory limit was not exceeded, or that the State’s time to bring the defendant to trial was properly extended.” State v. Wagner, 2021-Ohio-1671, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Nichols, 2005-Ohio-1771, ¶ 11 (5th Dist.), citing Butcher at 30- 31. i. Case Nos. 21-CR-739 and 22-CR-57 {¶ 44} According to Little, his statutory speedy trial time in Case Nos. 21-CR-739 and 22-CR-57 was not extended by the December 2022 mistrial because 2024“If a defendant ‘establishes a prima facie case of a violation of his right to a speedy trial, the burden then shifts to the State’ to demonstrate either that the statutory limit was not exceeded, or that the State’s time to bring the defendant to trial was properly extended.” State v. Wagner, 2021-Ohio-1671, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Nichols, 2005-Ohio-1771, ¶ 11 (5th Dist.), citing Butcher at 30-31 . | 4 | 4 |
State v. Dankworthgreen2 sentences2025State v. Dankworth, 2007-Ohio-2588, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.). {¶ 86} “A defendant establishes a prima facie speedy trial violation when his motion [to dismiss] reveals that a trial did not occur within the time period prescribed by R.C. 2945.71.” State v. Hill, 2020-Ohio-2958, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Butcher, 27 Ohio St.3d 28, 31 (1986). 2024State v. Dankworth, 2007-Ohio-2588, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.). {¶ 18} “A defendant establishes a prima facie speedy trial violation when his motion [to dismiss] reveals that a trial did not occur within the time period prescribed by R.C. 2945.71.” State v. Hill, 2020-Ohio-2958, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Butcher, 27 Ohio St.3d 28, 31 (1986). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Brooksgreen1 sentence2024See Brooks, supra, at ¶ 24 ; State v. Smith, 2017-Ohio-7864 , ¶ 21 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Squillace, 2016-Ohio-1038, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Squillacegreen1 sentence2024See Brooks, supra, at ¶ 24 ; State v. Smith, 2017-Ohio-7864 , ¶ 21 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Squillace, 2016-Ohio-1038, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.). | 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. Belville
green
1 sentence2026However, that time period can be extended or tolled by any of the several events listed under R.C. 2945.72(A) through (J). {¶ 24} Pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(E), speedy-trial time is tolled for “[a]ny period of delay necessitated by reason of a plea in bar or abatement, motion, proceeding, or action made or instituted by the accused.” To qualify as a tolling event under R.C. 2945.72(E), “all that the statute requires is that the delay be necessitated by the defendant’s action.” State v. Belville, 2022-Ohio-3879, ¶ 31 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Ramey
green
1 sentence2025It is well established that the 270-day time limit for bringing a defendant to trial can be extended or tolled for any of the reasons listed under R.C. 2945.72(A) through (J). {¶ 23} It is also well established that “[a] criminal defendant may waive speedy trial rights.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Ramey, 2012-Ohio-2904, ¶ 18 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hiatt
green
1 sentence2008"We accept the facts as found by the trial court on some competent, credible evidence, but freely review the application of the law to the facts." Id., citing Hiatt at 261 . *Page 26 {¶ 116} Mr. Jackson fails to allege a prima facie speedy trial violation as he did not timely respond to the state's reciprocal discovery request. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.