importance hearing in Ohio

2017In State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 , at paragraph one of the syllabus, this court acknowledged the importance of a hearing to aid in developing a record that could be examined by a reviewing court to determine whether a trial court properly exercised its discretion in ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea.

2017In State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 , at paragraph one of the syllabus, this court acknowledged the importance of a hearing to aid in developing a record that could be examined by a reviewing court to determine whether a trial court properly exercised its discretion in ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea.

2025Friedenberg, 2020-Ohio-3345 at ¶ 18 .

2021Leis v. Gusweiler, 65 Ohio St.2d 60 (1981), and State ex rel.

2019Moore v. Black Panther Party (1982), 458 U.S. 1118 , 102 S.Ct. 3505 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1381 (balancing the need for discovery with the importance of the privilege); Hearn v. Rhay (E.D.Wash.1975), 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (setting forth a tripartite test in determining relevancy and necessity of the information).

2019Moore v. Black Panther Party (1982), 458 U.S. 1118 , 102 S.Ct. 3505 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1381 (balancing the need for discovery with the importance of the privilege); Hearn v. Rhay (E.D.Wash.1975), 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (setting forth a tripartite test in determining relevancy and necessity of the information).

2019Moore v. Black Panther Party (1982), 458 U.S. 1118 , 102 S.Ct. 3505 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1381 (balancing the need for discovery with the importance of the privilege); Hearn v. Rhay (E.D.Wash.1975), 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (setting forth a tripartite test in determining relevancy and necessity of the information).

2016On appeal, the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction and explained the importance of a hearing to determine whether the juror was impacted by the outside communication: “In a criminal case, any private communication, contact, or tampering directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is, for obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial. “* * * “The trial court should not decide and take final action ex parte on information such as was received in this case, but should determine the circumstances, the impact thereof upon the juror

2016The Ohio Supreme Court has relied on Remmer to require the trial court to hold a hearing in cases involving outside communications with jurors: “When a trial court learns of an improper outside communication with a juror, it must hold a hearing to determine whether the communication biased the juror.” State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72 , 88, 656 N.E.2d 643 , citing Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. at 215–16, and Remmer.

2016The Ohio Supreme Court has relied on Remmer to require the trial court to hold a hearing in cases involving outside communications with jurors: “When a trial court learns of an improper outside communication with a juror, it must hold a hearing to determine whether the communication biased the juror.” State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72 , 88, 656 N.E.2d 643 , citing Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. at 215–16, and Remmer.

2016The Ohio Supreme Court has relied on Remmer to require the trial court to hold a hearing in cases involving outside communications with jurors: “When a trial court learns of an improper outside communication with a juror, it must hold a hearing to determine whether the communication biased the juror.” State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72 , 88, 656 N.E.2d 643 , citing Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. at 215–16, and Remmer.

2008We adhere to stare decisis as a means of thwarting the arbitrary administration of justice as well as providing a clear rule of law by which the citizenry can organize their affairs. * * * However, a supreme court not only has the right, but is entrusted with the duty to examine its former decisions and, when reconciliation is impossible, to discard its former errors.” Id. at ¶ 43. {¶ 134} Given the importance of the doctrine of stare decisis, we set forth in Galatis a tripartite test for considering whether a previous decision of this court should be overruled: “A prior decision of the Suprem

2008We adhere to stare decisis as a means of thwarting the arbitrary administration of justice as well as providing a clear rule of law by which the citizenry can organize their affairs. * * * However, a supreme court not only has the right, but is entrusted with the duty to examine its former decisions and, when reconciliation is impossible, to discard its former errors.” Id. at ¶ 43. {¶ 134} Given the importance of the doctrine of stare decisis, we set forth in Galatis a tripartite test for considering whether a previous decision of this court should be overruled: “A prior decision of the Suprem

2007The court in Fortune v. Castle Nursing Homes, Inc. , expressed great concern about this very scenario when it stated that "inclusion of a binding-arbitration clause must be done in such a manner that the person signing the agreement is made aware of the existence of the provision and the importance of the right he or she is waiving." Fortune v. Castle Nursing Homes, Inc. , 2005-Ohio-6195 , at ¶ 32 . {¶ 39} The Fortune Court upheld the arbitration clause in question only because the consumer in that case failed to supply any evidentiary material or testimony to establish they were not informed

2000In Petrey v. Simon (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 154 , 156-157 , the court observed: "* * * Civ.R. 56(C) provides, in part: `The motion shall be served at least fourteen days before the time fixed for hearing.' Commentators on the comparable provision in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 have noted the importance of this requirement: `* * * In theory, the additional time ought to produce a well-prepared and complete presentation on the motion to facilitate its disposition by the court.

1911"The same doctrine is approved and further expounded in the case of the U.S. v. Cook, above cited, where the court, in speaking of words of reference, says, `The exception itself is supposed to be incorporated in the general clause.' "In the case of Hamlett v. State (Mo.), 107 S.W. 1012 , the defendant was charged with pursuing the occupation of a druggist without being a registered pharmacist.