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.
13 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Terry v. Ohiogreen1 sentence2026“The State is only required to present general testimony there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the regulations; specific evidence is not required unless the defendant raises a specific issue in the motion to suppress.” Bordeau, at ¶ 13, citing Bissaillon, supra, at ¶ 12; State v. Crotty, 2005- Ohio 2923, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). {¶57} Finally, as the Supreme Court of Ohio explained in State v. Baker, 2016-Ohio-451 : A defendant must first challenge the validity of the alcohol test by way of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence; failure to file such a motion “waives the requirem | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2012(F) While not in transit or under examination, all blood and urine specimens shall be refrigerated. {¶13} In Burnside at ¶ 24 , citing State v. Brown, 109 Ohio App.3d 629, 632 (4th Dist.1996), the Supreme Court of Ohio explained the burden-shifting procedure used in challenges to the admissibility of alcohol-test results, stating: The defendant must first challenge the validity of the alcohol test by way of a pretrial motion to suppress; failure to file such a motion ‘waives the requirement 5 on the [S]tate to lay a foundation for the admissibility of the test results.’ After a defendant chall | 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. French
green
2 sentences2026“The State is only required to present general testimony there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the regulations; specific evidence is not required unless the defendant raises a specific issue in the motion to suppress.” Bordeau, at ¶ 13, citing Bissaillon, supra, at ¶ 12; State v. Crotty, 2005- Ohio 2923, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). {¶57} Finally, as the Supreme Court of Ohio explained in State v. Baker, 2016-Ohio-451 : A defendant must first challenge the validity of the alcohol test by way of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence; failure to file such a motion “waives the requirem 2026“The State is only required to present general testimony there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the regulations; specific evidence is not required unless the defendant raises a specific issue in the motion to suppress.” Bordeau, at ¶ 13, citing Bissaillon, supra, at ¶ 12; State v. Crotty, 2005- Ohio 2923, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). {¶57} Finally, as the Supreme Court of Ohio explained in State v. Baker, 2016-Ohio-451 : A defendant must first challenge the validity of the alcohol test by way of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence; failure to file such a motion “waives the requirem | 10 | 2003–2026 |
State v. Mayl
green
2 sentences2013State v. Mayl, 154 Ohio App.3d 717 , 2003–Ohio–5097, ¶ 22. {¶20} “ ‘The defendant must first challenge the validity of the alcohol test by way of a pretrial motion to suppress; failure to file such a motion “waives the requirement on the state to lay a foundation for the admissibility of the test results.” State v. French (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 446, 451 , 650 N.E.2d 887 . 2012State v. Mayl, 154 Ohio App.3d 717 , 798 N.E.2d 1101 , 2003–Ohio–5097, ¶ 22. {¶14} “‘The defendant must first challenge the validity of the alcohol test by way of a pretrial motion to suppress; failure to file such a motion “waives the requirement on the state to lay a foundation for the admissibility of the test results.” State v. French (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 446, 451 , 650 N.E.2d 887 . | 3 | 2012–2013 |
State v. Baker (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2026“The State is only required to present general testimony there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the regulations; specific evidence is not required unless the defendant raises a specific issue in the motion to suppress.” Bordeau, at ¶ 13, citing Bissaillon, supra, at ¶ 12; State v. Crotty, 2005- Ohio 2923, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). {¶57} Finally, as the Supreme Court of Ohio explained in State v. Baker, 2016-Ohio-451 : A defendant must first challenge the validity of the alcohol test by way of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence; failure to file such a motion “waives the requirem 2017Appellant further contends that the Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Baker, 146 Ohio St.3d 456 , 2016-Ohio-451 , 58 N.E.3d 1114 , would have cemented this issue prior to the scheduling of a trial date, meaning that the trial court would not have had the same rationale for denying the motion for leave had such a motion been ROSS, 16CA3564 10 timely filed following Baker. {¶ 24} In Baker, the court clarified the State v. Burnside ( 100 Ohio St.3d 152 , 2003-Ohio-5372 , 797 N.E.2d 71 ) burden-shifting test, holding: “A defendant must first challenge the validity of the alcohol test by | 2 | 2017–2026 |
State v. Burnside
green
2 sentences2017Appellant further contends that the Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Baker, 146 Ohio St.3d 456 , 2016-Ohio-451 , 58 N.E.3d 1114 , would have cemented this issue prior to the scheduling of a trial date, meaning that the trial court would not have had the same rationale for denying the motion for leave had such a motion been ROSS, 16CA3564 10 timely filed following Baker. {¶ 24} In Baker, the court clarified the State v. Burnside ( 100 Ohio St.3d 152 , 2003-Ohio-5372 , 797 N.E.2d 71 ) burden-shifting test, holding: “A defendant must first challenge the validity of the alcohol test by 2017Appellant further contends that the Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Baker, 146 Ohio St.3d 456 , 2016-Ohio-451 , 58 N.E.3d 1114 , would have cemented this issue prior to the scheduling of a trial date, meaning that the trial court would not have had the same rationale for denying the motion for leave had such a motion been ROSS, 16CA3564 10 timely filed following Baker. {¶ 24} In Baker, the court clarified the State v. Burnside ( 100 Ohio St.3d 152 , 2003-Ohio-5372 , 797 N.E.2d 71 ) burden-shifting test, holding: “A defendant must first challenge the validity of the alcohol test by | 2 | 2017–2023 |
State v. French
green
1 sentence2026“The State is only required to present general testimony there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the regulations; specific evidence is not required unless the defendant raises a specific issue in the motion to suppress.” Bordeau, at ¶ 13, citing Bissaillon, supra, at ¶ 12; State v. Crotty, 2005- Ohio 2923, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). {¶57} Finally, as the Supreme Court of Ohio explained in State v. Baker, 2016-Ohio-451 : A defendant must first challenge the validity of the alcohol test by way of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence; failure to file such a motion “waives the requirem | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.