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 1998–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Stilesgreen1 sentence2021Licking No. 18CA0099, 2019-Ohio-3852, ¶ 36 (“We find the record is contrary to appellant’s assertion that she ‘was in significant contact’ with the school regarding the absences.”); Lewis, 2017-Ohio-9311 , at ¶ 21- 22 (concluding that “the trial court reasonably could have found that she acted -12- Case No. 5-20-31 recklessly” “[b]ecause she purportedly did nothing but continue to send undelivered notes” “despite the school’s repeated warnings about absences”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Apanovitchgreen1 sentence2020See State v. Apanovitch, 33 30 January Term, 2020 Ohio St.3d 19 , 24, 514 N.E.2d 394 (1987) (jury instruction that closing arguments are not evidence contributed to determination that prosecutor’s improper statements did not deny a fair trial). {¶ 118} Kirkland also argues that the prosecutor improperly “belittled” and “personally attacked” Dr. Wu. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2019See id. (“Even a cursory review of the record demonstrates that the trial judge repeatedly warned Boynton throughout the proceedings, both before and during trial, that he would be removed from the courtroom if he continued his disruptive behavior.”). | 1 | 1 |
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen1 sentence2005See Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219 ; Pons, 66 Ohio St.3d at 621 . | 1 | 1 |
People Ex Rel. VanMeveren v. COUNTY COURT, ETC.green2 sentences1998See Champagne v. Gintick (D.Conn.1994), 871 F.Supp. 1527, 1534 (“[t]he word ‘repeatedly’ requires a finding that the defendant followed the victim * * * ‘on more than one occasion ’ ”); Phillips v. Dept. of Agriculture (C.A.9, 1991), 923 F.2d 862 (“[c]ourts have interpreted the word ‘repeated’ strictly. * * * [I]t simply means more than once ”); Brooks v. McWhirter Grading Co., Inc. (1981), 303 N.C. 573, 588 , 281 S.E.2d 24, 31 (a second, similar OSHA violation is a repeated violation); State v. Larimer (1976), 191 Colo. 201, 205 , 551 P.2d 716, 720 (“/rjepeatedly is a word of such common unde 1998See Champagne v. Gintick (D.Conn.1994), 871 F.Supp. 1527, 1534 (“[t]he word ‘repeatedly’ requires a finding that the defendant followed the victim * * * ‘on more than one occasion ’ ”); Phillips v. Dept. of Agriculture (C.A.9, 1991), 923 F.2d 862 (“[c]ourts have interpreted the word ‘repeated’ strictly. * * * [I]t simply means more than once ”); Brooks v. McWhirter Grading Co., Inc. (1981), 303 N.C. 573, 588 , 281 S.E.2d 24, 31 (a second, similar OSHA violation is a repeated violation); State v. Larimer (1976), 191 Colo. 201, 205 , 551 P.2d 716, 720 (“/rjepeatedly is a word of such common unde | 1 | 1 |
Champagne v. Gintickgreen1 sentence1998See Champagne v. Gintick (D.Conn.1994), 871 F.Supp. 1527, 1534 (“[t]he word ‘repeatedly’ requires a finding that the defendant followed the victim * * * ‘on more than one occasion ’ ”); Phillips v. Dept. of Agriculture (C.A.9, 1991), 923 F.2d 862 (“[c]ourts have interpreted the word ‘repeated’ strictly. * * * [I]t simply means more than once ”); Brooks v. McWhirter Grading Co., Inc. (1981), 303 N.C. 573, 588 , 281 S.E.2d 24, 31 (a second, similar OSHA violation is a repeated violation); State v. Larimer (1976), 191 Colo. 201, 205 , 551 P.2d 716, 720 (“/rjepeatedly is a word of such common unde | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. McWhirter Grading Co., Inc.green2 sentences1998See Champagne v. Gintick (D.Conn.1994), 871 F.Supp. 1527, 1534 (“[t]he word ‘repeatedly’ requires a finding that the defendant followed the victim * * * ‘on more than one occasion ’ ”); Phillips v. Dept. of Agriculture (C.A.9, 1991), 923 F.2d 862 (“[c]ourts have interpreted the word ‘repeated’ strictly. * * * [I]t simply means more than once ”); Brooks v. McWhirter Grading Co., Inc. (1981), 303 N.C. 573, 588 , 281 S.E.2d 24, 31 (a second, similar OSHA violation is a repeated violation); State v. Larimer (1976), 191 Colo. 201, 205 , 551 P.2d 716, 720 (“/rjepeatedly is a word of such common unde 1998See Champagne v. Gintick (D.Conn.1994), 871 F.Supp. 1527, 1534 (“[t]he word ‘repeatedly’ requires a finding that the defendant followed the victim * * * ‘on more than one occasion ’ ”); Phillips v. Dept. of Agriculture (C.A.9, 1991), 923 F.2d 862 (“[c]ourts have interpreted the word ‘repeated’ strictly. * * * [I]t simply means more than once ”); Brooks v. McWhirter Grading Co., Inc. (1981), 303 N.C. 573, 588 , 281 S.E.2d 24, 31 (a second, similar OSHA violation is a repeated violation); State v. Larimer (1976), 191 Colo. 201, 205 , 551 P.2d 716, 720 (“/rjepeatedly is a word of such common unde | 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 ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences2005Comm. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 158 . {¶ 26} In Bing, Navistar and Chrsyler, the repeated requirement was that the claimant must demonstrate a functional change in his medical condition. 2004Comm. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 158 . {¶ 33} In Bing, Navistar, and Chrysler, the repeated requirement was that the claimant must demonstrate a functional change in his medical condition. | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Faretta v. California
green
1 sentence2026In spite of the trial court’s repeated warnings, Mr. Higgins continually indicated he was prepared for trial and knew the case better than anyone, including his own attorney. {¶19} Further, regarding Mr. Higgins’ argument that his unpreparedness to represent himself was “apparent during trial,” we turn to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2021Licking No. 18CA0099, 2019-Ohio-3852, ¶ 36 (“We find the record is contrary to appellant’s assertion that she ‘was in significant contact’ with the school regarding the absences.”); Lewis, 2017-Ohio-9311 , at ¶ 21- 22 (concluding that “the trial court reasonably could have found that she acted -12- Case No. 5-20-31 recklessly” “[b]ecause she purportedly did nothing but continue to send undelivered notes” “despite the school’s repeated warnings about absences”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2016Jones, 2012-Ohio-5677, at ¶ 194 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Industrial Commission
neutral
1 sentence2007Comm. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 193 . {¶ 34} In Bing, Navistar and Chrysler , the repeated requirement was that the claimant must demonstrate a functional change in his/her medical condition. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2007Id. {¶ 21} Here, we view the trial court's instruction regarding "guilt or innocence" in the context of the overall charge which included proper instructions regarding reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board
green
1 sentence2005See Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219 ; Pons, 66 Ohio St.3d at 621 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Isaac, Unpublished Decision (7-15-2005)
green
1 sentence2005Civ.R. 52(B); State v. Isaac, Montgomery App. No. 20662, 2005-Ohio-3733, ¶ 24 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
McFadden v. United States
green
1 sentence1998See Champagne v. Gintick (D.Conn.1994), 871 F.Supp. 1527, 1534 (“[t]he word ‘repeatedly’ requires a finding that the defendant followed the victim * * * ‘on more than one occasion ’ ”); Phillips v. Dept. of Agriculture (C.A.9, 1991), 923 F.2d 862 (“[c]ourts have interpreted the word ‘repeated’ strictly. * * * [I]t simply means more than once ”); Brooks v. McWhirter Grading Co., Inc. (1981), 303 N.C. 573, 588 , 281 S.E.2d 24, 31 (a second, similar OSHA violation is a repeated violation); State v. Larimer (1976), 191 Colo. 201, 205 , 551 P.2d 716, 720 (“/rjepeatedly is a word of such common unde | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.