12 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Child Care Provider v. Harris, Unpublished Decision (12-4-2003)green2 sentences2026See In re Adoption of C.L.T., 2012-Ohio-5706 , 2012 WL 6061705 , ¶ 19 (8th Dist.), citing Child Care Provider Certification Dept. v. Harris, 2003-Ohio-6500 , 2003 WL 22862894 , ¶ 15 (8th Dist.) (Trial court’s judgment was reversed because it did not afford the party an opportunity to present a defense to the evidence relied on against her). 2025See In re Adoption of C.L.T., 2012-Ohio-5706, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.), citing Child Care Provider Certification Dept. v. Harris, 2003-Ohio-6500, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.) (Trial court’s judgment was reversed because it did not afford the party an opportunity to present a defense to the evidence relied on against her). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lazazzeragreen2 sentences2026See Lazazzera, 2013-Ohio-2547, at ¶ 20 (7th Dist.) Case No. 25 MA 0064 – 41 – (advising the defendant he would be found guilty without an opportunity to present a defense and is the essence of the plea and essentially conveyed he was admitting the facts in the complaint), citing State ex rel. 2017Mahoning No. 12 MA 170, 2013-Ohio-2547, ¶ 17-20 (trial court partially complied with effect-of-plea requirement where trial judge informed defendant “[i]f you are pleading no contest, you are saying that you are not contesting this charge so you are allowing me to find that you are guilty of it without going through a trial and being proven guilty” and defendant indicated that he understood). | 2 | 2 |
In re Adoption of C.L.T.green2 sentences2026See In re Adoption of C.L.T., 2012-Ohio-5706 , 2012 WL 6061705 , ¶ 19 (8th Dist.), citing Child Care Provider Certification Dept. v. Harris, 2003-Ohio-6500 , 2003 WL 22862894 , ¶ 15 (8th Dist.) (Trial court’s judgment was reversed because it did not afford the party an opportunity to present a defense to the evidence relied on against her). 2025See In re Adoption of C.L.T., 2012-Ohio-5706, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.), citing Child Care Provider Certification Dept. v. Harris, 2003-Ohio-6500, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.) (Trial court’s judgment was reversed because it did not afford the party an opportunity to present a defense to the evidence relied on against her). | 2 | 2 |
State ex rel. Stern v. Masciogreen1 sentence2026Stern, 75 Ohio St.3d 422, 424 (“The essence of the ‘no contest’ plea, is that the accused cannot be heard in defense.”). {¶151} Then, at the plea hearing, it is undisputed the court personally reviewed with Appellant the required constitutional rights being waived. | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. Mississippigreen2 sentences2006See, generally, Chambers v. Mississippi (1973), 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 . 2006See, generally, Chambers v. Mississippi (1973), 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Belcastrogreen2 sentences2005See, also, State v. Belcastro (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 498 , 501 , 744 N.E.2d 271 , and In re Contempt Citation of Lewis (Mar. 31, 1999), Greene App. 98CA29, *2. 2005See, also, State v. Belcastro (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 498 , 501 , 744 N.E.2d 271 , and In re Contempt Citation of Lewis (Mar. 31, 1999), Greene App. 98CA29, *2. | 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. Brooks
green
2 sentences2017Id. 2 {¶ 21} Appellant argues the facts in Brooks , and cases relied on therein showed overwhelming evidence of guilt. 1999The Supreme Court added, moreover, that even if defendant had amnesia, the court did "not believe that appellant's amnesia alone denied him either the effective assistance of counsel or the opportunity to present a defense." Id. at 151 . | 3 | 1999–2017 |
State v. Ramey
green
2 sentences2018Mahoning No. 13 MA 64, 2014-Ohio-2345 , 2014 WL 2533829 , ¶ 19. 2017Musleh stated that he understood the offense to which he was pleading no contest and all the rights he was waiving by pleading no contest. {¶23} The record reflects that Musleh was both advised of the “essence” of his no contest plea, i.e., that he was permitting the trial court to find him guilty without the opportunity to present a defense, and the negative effects of his no contest plea, i.e., that “he could be found guilty without going through a trial and that he would be waiving all of his Constitutional trial rights.” Ramey, 2014-Ohio-2345, at ¶ 19 ; see also State v. Lazazzera, 7th Dis | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Smith v. Wright
green
1 sentence2020Because these three assignments ultimately have as their basis the trial court’s decision prohibiting the tenant from introducing evidence of retaliation, we address them together. {¶8} In Ohio, “a landlord may not evict a tenant in retaliation for the tenant’s complaint either to an appropriate governmental agency or to the landlord himself concerning the conditions of the premises.” Smith v. Wright, 65 Ohio App.2d 101 , 416 N.E.2d 665 (8th Dist.1979); R.C. 5321.02(A). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
City of Cleveland Heights v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2012Cleveland Hts. v. Lewis, 129 Ohio St.3d 389 , 2011-Ohio-2673 , 953 N.E.2d 278 (8th Dist.). {¶ 26} In accordance with the foregoing, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for a new hearing in order for Kehoe to be given an opportunity to present his claim for attorney fees from the funds that it helped to create in this matter. 2012Cleveland Hts. v. Lewis, 129 Ohio St.3d 389 , 2011-Ohio-2673 , 953 N.E.2d 278 (8th Dist.). {¶ 26} In accordance with the foregoing, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for a new hearing in order for Kehoe to be given an opportunity to present his claim for attorney fees from the funds that it helped to create in this matter. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.