13 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1935–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cleveland v. State (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2022See Cleveland, 157 Ohio St.3d 330 , 2019-Ohio-3820 , 136 N.E.3d 466 , at ¶ 40. 2022See Cleveland, 157 Ohio St.3d 330 , 2019-Ohio-3820 , 136 N.E.3d 466 , at ¶ 40. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Muttergreen2 sentences2012See Cleveland Bar Ass’n v. Picklo, 96 Ohio St.3d 195 , 2002-Ohio-395 , ¶ 7 (finding that a party is only required to provide notice of a constitutionality challenge to the Ohio Attorney General where the original action was for declaratory judgment and was brought pursuant to R.C. 2727.12); State v. Mutter, 171 Ohio App.3d 563 , 2007-Ohio-1052, ¶ 2 (8th Dist.) (rejecting argument that criminal defendant waives issue of constitutionality of statute if he fails to provide notice of challenge to the Ohio Attorney General). 2012See Cleveland Bar Ass’n v. Picklo, 96 Ohio St.3d 195 , 2002-Ohio-395 , ¶ 7 (finding that a party is only required to provide notice of a constitutionality challenge to the Ohio Attorney General where the original action was for declaratory judgment and was brought pursuant to R.C. 2727.12); State v. Mutter, 171 Ohio App.3d 563 , 2007-Ohio-1052, ¶ 2 (8th Dist.) (rejecting argument that criminal defendant waives issue of constitutionality of statute if he fails to provide notice of challenge to the Ohio Attorney General). | 1 | 1 |
Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Picklogreen1 sentence2012See Cleveland Bar Ass’n v. Picklo, 96 Ohio St.3d 195 , 2002-Ohio-395 , ¶ 7 (finding that a party is only required to provide notice of a constitutionality challenge to the Ohio Attorney General where the original action was for declaratory judgment and was brought pursuant to R.C. 2727.12); State v. Mutter, 171 Ohio App.3d 563 , 2007-Ohio-1052, ¶ 2 (8th Dist.) (rejecting argument that criminal defendant waives issue of constitutionality of statute if he fails to provide notice of challenge to the Ohio Attorney General). | 1 | 1 |
Ohio Apartment Ass'n v. Levingreen2 sentences2010Assn. v. Levin, 122 Ohio St.3d 1231 , 2009-Ohio-3477 , 911 N.E.2d 906, ¶ 3 (rejecting argument that a rule-review proceeding before the BTA is quasi- 6 January Term, 2010 legislative in character) and ¶ 4 (rejecting argument that appellants may not use the BTA’s rule-review proceeding to challenge the constitutionality of a rule or statutory classification). {¶ 21} The commissioner’s second proposition of law was also resolved by our disposition of the motion to dismiss. 2010Assn. v. Levin, 122 Ohio St.3d 1231 , 2009-Ohio-3477 , 911 N.E.2d 906, ¶ 3 (rejecting argument that a rule-review proceeding before the BTA is quasi- 6 January Term, 2010 legislative in character) and ¶ 4 (rejecting argument that appellants may not use the BTA’s rule-review proceeding to challenge the constitutionality of a rule or statutory classification). {¶ 21} The commissioner’s second proposition of law was also resolved by our disposition of the motion to dismiss. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2004State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d at 171-172, 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264 ; Delo v. Lashley (1993), 507 U.S. 272, 275-276 , 113 S.Ct. 1222 , 122 L.Ed.2d 620 . {¶ 181} In his 16th proposition of law, Leonard raises various constitutional challenges to Ohio death-penalty statutes. 2004State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d at 171-172, 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264 ; Delo v. Lashley (1993), 507 U.S. 272, 275-276 , 113 S.Ct. 1222 , 122 L.Ed.2d 620 . {¶ 181} In his 16th proposition of law, Leonard raises various constitutional challenges to Ohio death-penalty statutes. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Saenz v. Roe
green
2 sentences2001“Neither mere rationality nor some intermediate standard of review should be used to judge the constitutionality of a state rule that discriminates against some of its citizens because they have been domiciled in the State for less than a year.” Id. at 504 , 119 S.Ct. at 1527 , 143 L.Ed.2d at 704-705 . 2001“Neither mere rationality nor some intermediate standard of review should be used to judge the constitutionality of a state rule that discriminates against some of its citizens because they have been domiciled in the State for less than a year.” Id. at 504 , 119 S.Ct. at 1527 , 143 L.Ed.2d at 704-705 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Mission Housing Development Co. v. City & County of San Francisco
green
2 sentences2000Co. v. City & Cty. of San Francisco (1997), 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 78 , 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185, 200 , concluded that the defendant had timely raised a constitutionality challenge by raising it for the first time in his opening trial brief. 2000Co. v. City & Cty. of San Francisco (1997), 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 78 , 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185, 200 , concluded that the defendant had timely raised a constitutionality challenge by raising it for the first time in his opening trial brief. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
City of Akron v. Rowland
green
1 sentence2015During the time frame relevant to this appeal, Pentedrone was not yet listed as a controlled substance.1 Id. {¶13} The four experts who testified at the constitutionality hearing all agreed on the chemical structures of Pentedrone and Methcathinone. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
City of Norwood v. Horney
green
1 sentence2015Consequently, we consider the evidence introduced at the constitutionality hearing in conjunction with the federal case law. {¶32} As previously noted, the first question a court must ask in performing a vagueness analysis is whether the statute at issue “provides sufficient notice of its proscriptions to facilitate compliance by persons of ordinary intelligence * * *.” In re E.D., 2011-Ohio-4067, at ¶ 9 , quoting Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2006-Ohio-3799 , ¶ 84. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In re E.D.
green
1 sentence2015Consequently, we consider the evidence introduced at the constitutionality hearing in conjunction with the federal case law. {¶32} As previously noted, the first question a court must ask in performing a vagueness analysis is whether the statute at issue “provides sufficient notice of its proscriptions to facilitate compliance by persons of ordinary intelligence * * *.” In re E.D., 2011-Ohio-4067, at ¶ 9 , quoting Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2006-Ohio-3799 , ¶ 84. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Schall v. Martin
green
1 sentence2012As a result, the lack of notice does not operate as a waiver in this matter. -11- Case No. 1-11-45 253, 269, 104 S.Ct. 2403 (1984). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Delo v. Lashley
green
2 sentences2004State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d at 171-172, 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264 ; Delo v. Lashley (1993), 507 U.S. 272, 275-276 , 113 S.Ct. 1222 , 122 L.Ed.2d 620 . {¶ 181} In his 16th proposition of law, Leonard raises various constitutional challenges to Ohio death-penalty statutes. 2004State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d at 171-172, 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264 ; Delo v. Lashley (1993), 507 U.S. 272, 275-276 , 113 S.Ct. 1222 , 122 L.Ed.2d 620 . {¶ 181} In his 16th proposition of law, Leonard raises various constitutional challenges to Ohio death-penalty statutes. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Ashworth
green
2 sentences2004We overrule this claim on the authority of State v. Ashworth (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 56, 70 , 706 N.E.2d 1231 , and State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d at 103-104, 656 N.E.2d 643 . {¶ 180} Leonard’s argument in proposition of law 13 challenging the constitutionality of the requirement that mitigating factors be proven by a preponderance of the evidence is without merit. 2004We overrule this claim on the authority of State v. Ashworth (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 56, 70 , 706 N.E.2d 1231 , and State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d at 103-104, 656 N.E.2d 643 . {¶ 180} Leonard’s argument in proposition of law 13 challenging the constitutionality of the requirement that mitigating factors be proven by a preponderance of the evidence is without merit. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Phillips
green
1 sentence2004We overrule this claim on the authority of State v. Ashworth (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 56, 70 , 706 N.E.2d 1231 , and State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d at 103-104, 656 N.E.2d 643 . {¶ 180} Leonard’s argument in proposition of law 13 challenging the constitutionality of the requirement that mitigating factors be proven by a preponderance of the evidence is without merit. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Zuern
green
2 sentences2000State v. Awkal (Nov. 25, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 73267, unreported; State v. Loza (Oct. 13, 1997), Butler App. No. CA96-10-214, unreported; State v. Benner (Aug. 27, 1997), Summit App. No. 1809, unreported. "`However, because of the * * * exacting review necessary where the death penalty is involved, [courts may] reserve the right to consider the constitutional challenges in particular cases.'" State v. Chinn (quoting State v. Zuern (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 56 , 63 , 512 N.E.2d 585 , 592 ). 2000State v. Awkal (Nov. 25, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 73267, unreported; State v. Loza (Oct. 13, 1997), Butler App. No. CA96-10-214, unreported; State v. Benner (Aug. 27, 1997), Summit App. No. 1809, unreported. "`However, because of the * * * exacting review necessary where the death penalty is involved, [courts may] reserve the right to consider the constitutional challenges in particular cases.'" State v. Chinn (quoting State v. Zuern (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 56 , 63 , 512 N.E.2d 585 , 592 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Karches v. City of Cincinnati
green
2 sentences1996Karches v. Cincinnati (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 12, 17 , 526 N.E.2d 1350, 1355-1356 . 1996Karches v. Cincinnati (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 12, 17 , 526 N.E.2d 1350, 1355-1356 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Stumpf
green
2 sentences1991However, this case does not present this issue, as the jury was told that “the defendant has no burden of proof,” and that it should weigh the proven aggravating circumstances against the mitigating factors “offered” or “presented.” In any event, we have previously addressed this issue and have upheld its constitutionality in State v. Stumpf (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 95 , 512 N.E. 2d 598 , certiorari denied (1988), 484 U.S. 1079 . 1991However, this case does not present this issue, as the jury was told that “the defendant has no burden of proof,” and that it should weigh the proven aggravating circumstances against the mitigating factors “offered” or “presented.” In any event, we have previously addressed this issue and have upheld its constitutionality in State v. Stumpf (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 95 , 512 N.E. 2d 598 , certiorari denied (1988), 484 U.S. 1079 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Post v. Ohio
green
1 sentence1991However, this case does not present this issue, as the jury was told that “the defendant has no burden of proof,” and that it should weigh the proven aggravating circumstances against the mitigating factors “offered” or “presented.” In any event, we have previously addressed this issue and have upheld its constitutionality in State v. Stumpf (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 95 , 512 N.E. 2d 598 , certiorari denied (1988), 484 U.S. 1079 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Wyckoff v. Southern Hotel Co.
neutral
1 sentence1935Apparently the legislature of Missouri did not agree with the court in Wykoff v Southern Hotel Co., supra. because it amended the law as construed in that case so as to reinstate the common law rule. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
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.