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.
12 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2025 5 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. Jones (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2025“That does not mean, however, that demonstrably faded memories and actually unavailable witnesses or lost evidence cannot satisfy the actual-prejudice requirement.” Id. 2025But that “does not mean . . . that demonstrably faded memories and actually unavailable witnesses or lost evidence cannot satisfy the actual-prejudice requirement.” Jones at ¶ 21. | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Luck
green
2 sentences2017The Ohio Supreme Court remanded the case for the court of appeals to make the appropriate determination “in the first instance,” applying the two-part burden-shifting analysis enunciated in State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215, 217 , 1998-Ohio-575 , 702 N.E.2d 1199 , and the actual-prejudice standard from State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 , 472 N.E.2d 1097 (1984). 2017The Ohio Supreme Court remanded the case for the court of appeals to make the appropriate determination “in the first instance,” applying the two-part burden-shifting analysis enunciated in State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215, 217 , 1998-Ohio-575 , 702 N.E.2d 1199 , and the actual-prejudice standard from State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 , 472 N.E.2d 1097 (1984). | 4 | 2016–2018 |
State v. Adams (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2018(Emphasis sic.) “Those are ‘the real possibilit[ies] of prejudice inherent in any extended delay,’ and statutes of limitations sufficiently protect against them.” Id., citing Marion, 404 U.S. at 326 , 92 S.Ct. 455 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 . {¶17} “That does not mean, however, that demonstrably faded memories and actually unavailable witnesses or lost evidence cannot satisfy the actual-prejudice requirement.” Id. 2018(Emphasis sic.) "Those are 'the real possibilit[ies] of prejudice inherent in any extended delay,' and statutes of limitations sufficiently protect against them." Id. , citing Marion , 404 U.S. at 326 , 92 S.Ct. 455 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 . {¶ 17} "That does not mean, however, that demonstrably faded memories and actually unavailable witnesses or lost evidence cannot satisfy the actual-prejudice requirement." Id. | 3 | 2017–2021 |
United States v. Marion
green
2 sentences2019“That does not mean, however, that demonstrably faded memories and actually unavailable witnesses or lost evidence cannot satisfy the actual-prejudice requirement.” Id. 2018(Emphasis sic.) "Those are 'the real possibilit[ies] of prejudice inherent in any extended delay,' and statutes of limitations sufficiently protect against them." Id. , citing Marion , 404 U.S. at 326 , 92 S.Ct. 455 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 . {¶ 17} "That does not mean, however, that demonstrably faded memories and actually unavailable witnesses or lost evidence cannot satisfy the actual-prejudice requirement." Id. | 3 | 2018–2019 |
State v. Whiting
green
2 sentences2017The Ohio Supreme Court remanded the case for the court of appeals to make the appropriate determination “in the first instance,” applying the two-part burden-shifting analysis enunciated in State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215, 217 , 1998-Ohio-575 , 702 N.E.2d 1199 , and the actual-prejudice standard from State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 , 472 N.E.2d 1097 (1984). 2017The Ohio Supreme Court remanded the case for the court of appeals to make the appropriate determination “in the first instance,” applying the two-part burden-shifting analysis enunciated in State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215, 217 , 1998-Ohio-575 , 702 N.E.2d 1199 , and the actual-prejudice standard from State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 , 472 N.E.2d 1097 (1984). | 3 | 2016–2017 |
State v. McCoy
green
2 sentences2022Cuyahoga No. 107029, 2019-Ohio-868 , in which the Eighth District again referred to the actual-prejudice test set forth in Jones. 2022Cuyahoga No. 107029, 2019-Ohio-868 , in which the Eighth District again referred to the actual-prejudice test set forth in Jones. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Walls
green
1 sentence2021“A court must ‘consider the evidence as it exists when the indictment is filed and the prejudice the defendant will suffer at trial due to the delay.’” Id., quoting Walls at ¶ 52 . {¶13} If the defendant demonstrates evidence of faded memories, unavailable witnesses or lost evidence, he might satisfy the actual-prejudice requirement. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.