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.
14 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratoriesgreen2 sentences2021Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980); State v. Batstra, 5th Dist. 2021Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980); State v. Batstra, 5th Dist. | 1 | 6 |
State v. Grimes (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2026State v. Overton, 2025-Ohio- 5606, ¶ 11, fn. 1 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Grimes, 2017-Ohio-2927, ¶ 20 (“It is well- settled that where appellant did not include a transcript of a hearing, we must assume the regularity of that hearing.”). 2026State v. Overton, 2025-Ohio- 5606, ¶ 11, fn. 1 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Grimes, 2017-Ohio-2927, ¶ 20 (“It is well- settled that where appellant did not include a transcript of a hearing, we must assume the regularity of that hearing.”). | 1 | 5 |
State v. MacK, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2006)green1 sentence2008Mack , supra, at ¶ 17; Glenn , supra, at ¶ 33 ; Pearson , supra, at ¶ 11 . "`When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass on and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm.'" Jordan , supra, at ¶ 6 , quoting Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 199 . "[Where] a transcript of the guilty plea hearing is not available, we cannot adequately determine whether appellant fully understood the se | 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. Rembert
green
2 sentences2017No. 16AP-543, 2017-Ohio-1173, ¶ 13 , quoting State v. Smith, 11th Dist. 2017Franklin Nos. 16AP-543 and 16AP-544, 2017-Ohio-1173 , ¶ 13: In the absence of a transcript, "this court must presume the regularity of the hearing." State v. Smith, 11th Dist. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Smith, 2007-T-0076 (3-28-2008)
green
2 sentences2017No. 2007-T-0076, 2008-Ohio-1501, ¶ 20 . 2017No. 2007-T-0076, 2008-Ohio-1501, ¶ 20 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Jordan, Unpublished Decision (12-16-2004)
green
1 sentence2008Mack , supra, at ¶ 17; Glenn , supra, at ¶ 33 ; Pearson , supra, at ¶ 11 . "`When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass on and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm.'" Jordan , supra, at ¶ 6 , quoting Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 199 . "[Where] a transcript of the guilty plea hearing is not available, we cannot adequately determine whether appellant fully understood the se | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Pearson, Unpublished Decision (12-19-2003)
neutral
1 sentence2008Mack , supra, at ¶ 17; Glenn , supra, at ¶ 33 ; Pearson , supra, at ¶ 11 . "`When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass on and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm.'" Jordan , supra, at ¶ 6 , quoting Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 199 . "[Where] a transcript of the guilty plea hearing is not available, we cannot adequately determine whether appellant fully understood the se | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Glenn, Unpublished Decision (6-4-2004)
green
1 sentence2008Mack , supra, at ¶ 17; Glenn , supra, at ¶ 33 ; Pearson , supra, at ¶ 11 . "`When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass on and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm.'" Jordan , supra, at ¶ 6 , quoting Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 199 . "[Where] a transcript of the guilty plea hearing is not available, we cannot adequately determine whether appellant fully understood the se | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.