statutory sentencing factors in Ohio

83 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2025 14 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.

Followed or applied (14)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Arnettgreen ohio · 2000 · cited in 5 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2018–2019 2 sentences 2019Highland No. 11CA7, 2011-Ohio-6526, at ¶ 34 , quoting State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000) (“in considering the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12, the trial court has ‘the discretion to determine the weight to assign a particular statutory factor’ ”). 2019Highland No. 11CA7, 2011-Ohio-6526, at ¶ 34 , quoting State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000) (“in considering the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12, the trial court has ‘the discretion to determine the weight to assign a particular statutory factor’ ”).	5	5
State v. Baileygreen ohioctapp · 2011 · cited in 5 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2018–2019 2 sentences 2019Highland No. 11CA7, 2011-Ohio-6526, at ¶ 34 , quoting State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000) (“in considering the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12, the trial court has ‘the discretion to determine the weight to assign a particular statutory factor’ ”). 2019Highland No. 11CA7, 2011-Ohio-6526, ¶ 34 , quoting State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000) (“in considering the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12, the trial court has ‘the discretion to determine the weight to assign a particular statutory factor”).	5	5
State v. Nelsongreen ohioctapp · 2007 · cited in 6 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2008–2025 2 sentences 2025A court may impose the longest jail term authorized under section 2929.24 of the Revised Code only upon offenders who commit the worst forms of the offense or upon offenders whose conduct and response to prior sanctions for prior offenses demonstrate that the imposition of the longest jail term is necessary to deter the offender from committing a future criminal offense. {¶17} R.C. 2929.22 does not “mandate that the record reveal the trial court’s consideration of the statutory sentencing factors.” State v. Nuby, 2016-Ohio-8157 , ¶ 13- 14 (7th Dist.), quoting State v. Nelson, 2007-Ohio-3459, ¶ 2024Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0052 9 2929.22 does not mandate that the record reveal the trial court's consideration of the statutory sentencing factors.” State v. Nelson, 172 Ohio App.3d 419 , 2007-Ohio-3459 , 875 N.E.2d 137, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.).	4	6
State v. Carltongreen ohioctapp · 2014 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2015–2016 2 sentences 2016Montgomery No. 26086, 2014-Ohio-3835, ¶ 18 (observing that “we have held on more than one occasion that a trial court’s consideration of the statutory sentencing factors may be presumed from a silent record”). {¶ 9} In making sentencing decisions, “a trial court may rely on ‘a broad range of information.’ ” State v. Bodkins, 2d Dist. 2015Montgomery No. 26086, 2014-Ohio-3835 (noting that “we have held on more than one occasion that a trial court's consideration of the statutory sentencing factors may be presumed from a silent record.”) Id. at ¶ 18, citing State v. Imber, 2d Dist.	2	3
State v. Bowsergreen ohioctapp · 2010 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2012–2016 2 sentences 2012As detailed in response to Parks’s Third Assignment of Error, the trial 8 court did properly consider the statutory sentencing factors and guidelines in Parks’s case. {¶ 21} Furthermore, at sentencing “[t]he evidence the court may consider is not confined to the evidence that strictly relates to the conviction offense because the court is no longer concerned * * * with the narrow issue of guilt.” State v. Bowser, 186 Ohio App.3d 162 , 2010-Ohio-951 , 926 N.E.2d 714, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). 2012As detailed in response to Parks’s Third Assignment of Error, the trial 8 court did properly consider the statutory sentencing factors and guidelines in Parks’s case. {¶ 21} Furthermore, at sentencing “[t]he evidence the court may consider is not confined to the evidence that strictly relates to the conviction offense because the court is no longer concerned * * * with the narrow issue of guilt.” State v. Bowser, 186 Ohio App.3d 162 , 2010-Ohio-951 , 926 N.E.2d 714, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.).	2	2
State v. Taylorgreen ohioctapp · 2004 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 158 Ohio App.3d 597 , 2004-Ohio-5939 , at ¶ 26 . 2005See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 158 Ohio App.3d 597 , 2004-Ohio-5939 , at ¶ 26 .	2	2
State v. Holloman, 07ap-875 (6-3-2008)green ohioctapp · 2008 · cited in 5 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2009–2022 2 sentences 2022Franklin No. 07AP-875, 2008-Ohio-2650, at ¶ 19 (Decided prior to Jones, the court stated that “a defendant claiming inconsistent sentencing must show that the trial court failed to properly consider the statutory sentencing factors and guidelines found in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.”). {¶ 8} Appellant acknowledges Jones, but attempts to differentiate it by asserting that “there is no indication from the court’s record at sentencing, other than a passing statement, that the court even considered proportionality in fashioning Appellant’s seventeen-month ODRC sentence.” {¶ 9} “[N]either R.C. 2929.1 2018Franklin No. 07AP-875, 2008-Ohio-2650, ¶ 19 .	1	5
State v. Perkinsgreen ohioctapp · 1994 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1999–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., State v. Perkins (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 672 , 684-685 . 2000State v. Perkins (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 672 , 684-685 , citing State v. Kroner (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 133 ; State v. Henry (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 3 ; State v. Yontz (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 342 .	1	3
State v. Hairstongreen ohio · 2008 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2012–2019 2 sentences 2019FROELICH, J., concurring: {¶ 53} Brady was facing a maximum sentence of 198 years, and it is clear from the transcript that the court carefully and seriously weighed the statutory sentencing factors, the statements of Brady’s relatives and friends, and the statement of the victim before reaching its decision. {¶ 54} Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289 , 2008-Ohio-2338 , 888 N.E.2d 1073 , a non- homicide case in which the defendant received a 134-year sentence, holds that when “none of the individual sentences are grossly disproportionate to their respective offenses, an aggregate term resulting from 2012In light of the facts revealed at trial and in the sentencing proceedings, Long’s sentence of life without parole eligibility was not so grossly disproportionate to the offenses that it “shock[s] the sense of justice of the community.” State v. Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368, 371 , 715 N.E.2d 167 (1999), quoting McDougle at 70 ; see also State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289 , 2008-Ohio-2338 , 888 N.E.2d 1073 , ¶ 14. {¶57} Long next argues that the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence and in failing “to even consider” the purposes and principles of felony sentencing and the other	1	2
State v. Edmonsongreen ohio · 1999 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000See State v. Edmondson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 326 , 715 N.E.2d 131 , 134 (Had the General Assembly intended the R.C. 2929.14 (B) finding to include reasons, it would have explicitly expressed that intent* * .) Because we conclude the trial court properly considered all of the relevant statutory sentencing factors, we overrule Krocker's first assignment of error. 2000See State v. Edmondson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 326 , 715 N.E.2d 131 , 134 (Had the General Assembly intended the R.C. 2929.14 (B) finding to include reasons, it would have explicitly expressed that intent * *.) Because we conclude the trial court properly considered all of the relevant statutory sentencing factors, we overrule Krocker's first assignment of error.	1	2
State v. Williamsgreen ohioctapp · 2016 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025See State v. Williams, 2016-Ohio-733, ¶ 23 (4th Dist.).	1	1
State v. McCaleb, Unpublished Decision (9-8-2006)green ohioctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025In addition, the court must consider “any relevant oral and written statement made by the victim, the victim's representative, the victim's attorney, if applicable, the defendant, the defense attorney, and the prosecuting authority regarding sentencing for a misdemeanor.” R.C. 2929.22(D)(1). {¶ 20} “When determining a misdemeanor sentence, R.C. 2929.22 does not -8- mandate that the record reveal the trial court's consideration of the statutory sentencing factors.” State v. McCaleb, 2006-Ohio-4652, ¶ 41 (2d Dist.). 2025“Rather, appellate courts will presume that the trial court considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22 when the sentence is within the statutory limits, absent an affirmative showing to the contrary.” Id., citing State v. Kelly, 2005-Ohio-3058 (2d Dist.). {¶ 21} The sentences imposed in Case Nos. 23-TRD-001-1855 and 23-CRB-001- 0518 were within the applicable statutory limits for a first-degree misdemeanor and a fourth-degree misdemeanor, respectively.	1	1
State v. McIntoshgreen ohioctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014	1	1
State v. Adamsgreen ohio · 1980 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (57)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Henry green ohioctapp · 1987 2 sentences 2000State v. Perkins (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 672 , 684-685 , citing State v. Kroner (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 133 ; State v. Henry (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 3 ; State v. Yontz (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 342 . 1999State v. Perkins (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 672 , 684-685 , citing State v. Kroner (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 133 ; State v. Henry (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 3 ; State v. Yontz (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 342 .	4	1993–2000
State v. Kroner green ohioctapp · 1988 2 sentences 2000State v. Perkins (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 672 , 684-685 , citing State v. Kroner (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 133 ; State v. Henry (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 3 ; State v. Yontz (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 342 . 1999State v. Perkins (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 672 , 684-685 , citing State v. Kroner (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 133 ; State v. Henry (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 3 ; State v. Yontz (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 342 .	4	1993–2000
State v. Yontz green ohioctapp · 1986 2 sentences 2000State v. Perkins (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 672 , 684-685 , citing State v. Kroner (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 133 ; State v. Henry (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 3 ; State v. Yontz (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 342 . 1999State v. Perkins (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 672 , 684-685 , citing State v. Kroner (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 133 ; State v. Henry (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 3 ; State v. Yontz (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 342 .	4	1993–2000
State v. Foster green ohio · 2006 2 sentences 2024State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470, ¶ 36 , abrogated on other grounds by Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 , 129 S.Ct. 711 (2009). 2024State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470, ¶ 36 , abrogated on other grounds by Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 , 129 S.Ct. 711 (2009).	3	2007–2024
State v. Weyand, 07-Co-40 (12-4-2008) green ohioctapp · 2008 2 sentences 2013No. 07-CO-40, 2008-Ohio-6360, ¶ 7 , citing State v. Keylor, 7th Dist. 2012No. 07-CO-40, 2008-Ohio-6360, ¶7 , citing State v. Keylor, 7th Dist.	3	2010–2013
State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion) green ohio · 2016 2 sentences 2025Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will only reverse a sentence “if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002 . “[A]n appellate court’s authority to modify or vacate a sentence is limited to situations in which it concludes that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under certain specified statutes, not including R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones, 2020- Ohio-6729, ¶ 38. 2019State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶1, 22-23.	2	2019–2025
State v. Kelly, Unpublished Decision (6-17-2005) green ohioctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2025“Rather, appellate courts will presume that the trial court considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22 when the sentence is within the statutory limits, absent an affirmative showing to the contrary.” Id., citing State v. Kelly, 2005-Ohio-3058 (2d Dist.). {¶ 21} The sentences imposed in Case Nos. 23-TRD-001-1855 and 23-CRB-001- 0518 were within the applicable statutory limits for a first-degree misdemeanor and a fourth-degree misdemeanor, respectively. 2008Rather, appellate courts will presume that the trial court considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22 when the sentence is within the statutory limits, absent an affirmative showing to the contrary." State v. Nelson , 172 Ohio App.3d 419 , 2007-Ohio-3459 , 875 N.E.2d 137 , citing State v. Kelly , Greene App. No. 2004CA122, 2005-Ohio-3058 ; see, also, Uy. *Page 8 {¶ 21} Cleveland Codified Ordinance 3103.99(a) and (c) allow the court to sentence a corporation to a fine of up to $5,000 each day that a property is not in compliance.	2	2008–2025
State v. Clunen neutral ohioctapp · 2013 2 sentences 2024Columbiana No. 12 CO 30 , 2013-Ohio-5525, ¶ 21 ; State v. Moore, 11th Dist. 2020Columbiana No. 12 CO 30 , 2013-Ohio-5525, ¶ 21 ; State v. Moore, 11th Dist.	2	2020–2024
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion) green ohio · 2020 2 sentences 2022The 11-month prison term that was imposed was within the appropriate statutory range pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(A)(5). {¶57} In our review of the matter, we stress that under State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 , 2020-Ohio-6729 , and R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), this court has no authority to modify or vacate a sentence where the trial court has considered the appropriate sentencing statutes, the sentence is within the authorized sentencing range, and the sentence is not otherwise contrary to law. 2022The 11-month prison term that was imposed was within the appropriate statutory range pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(A)(5). {¶57} In our review of the matter, we stress that under State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 , 2020-Ohio-6729 , and R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), this court has no authority to modify or vacate a sentence where the trial court has considered the appropriate sentencing statutes, the sentence is within the authorized sentencing range, and the sentence is not otherwise contrary to law.	2	2021–2022
State v. Geldrich green ohioctapp · 2016 2 sentences 2019Warren No. CA2015-11- 103, 2016-Ohio-3400, ¶ 16 . {¶ 41} In support of his argument, appellant cites State v. Laracuente, 8th Dist. 2018Warren No. CA2015-11- 103, 2016-Ohio-3400, ¶ 16 . {¶ 36} In support of his argument, appellant cites several cases where defendants convicted of sexual battery received shorter sentences than appellant.	2	2018–2019
State v. Hodges neutral ohioctapp · 2014 2 sentences 2019Cuyahoga No. 101145, 2014-Ohio-4690, ¶ 11 , citing State v. Clunen, 7th Dist. 2017Thus, even where a defendant does not speak at sentencing, the court's statement that the defendant demonstrated a lack of remorse and an unwillingness to take responsibility, does not demonstrate that a court's sentencing decision is based upon the silence but shows only that the court was considering the statutory sentencing factors.” Id., citing State v. Clunen, 7th Dist.	2	2017–2019
State v. Sideris, Unpublished Decision (3-3-2005) green ohioctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2017Athens No. 04CA37, 2005-Ohio-1055 . 2007The court in Barger , however, found that the trial court properly considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors, and that the findings and sentence were not contrary to law, the reviewing court itself noting the "amount of controlled substance involved was substantial[.]" Id., at ¶ 26. {¶ 14} In State v. Sideris , Athens App. No. 04CA37, 2005-Ohio-1055 , at ¶ 27, the court held that, although not an enumerated factor under R.C. 2929.12 (B), the trial court could properly consider the fact the defendant had a "large quantity of drugs in his possession" as part of its consideration of "	2	2007–2017
State v. Hayes, 08ap-233 (3-12-2009) green ohioctapp · 2009 2 sentences 2017No. 08AP-233, 2009-Ohio-1100 , 2009 WL 638475 ] at ¶ 10 ; [ State v. Holloman , 10th Dist. 2009State v. Holloman , Franklin App. No. 07AP-875, 2008-Ohio-2650 , at ¶ 19 ." State v. Hayes , Franklin App. No. 08AP-233, 2009-Ohio-1100 , at ¶ 8-10 . {¶ 40} Although the trial court did not expressly state that it had considered the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12 , we must presume that the trial court properly considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 .	2	2009–2017
State v. Beasley green ohio · 1984 2 sentences 1996The Supreme Court, in concluding its analysis in Beasley , stated: “[T]he suspension of a correctly imposed sentence is different from the failure to impose a required sentence; however the end results are the same. * * * Just as the United States Supreme Court has prohibited circumvention of statutory sentencing requirements by indefinitely suspending a sentence, we feel that that court would prohibit circumvention of a statutory sentencing requirement by a trial court’s failure to originally impose a correct sentence.” (Emphasis added.) 14 Ohio St.3d at 76 , 14 OBR at 512-513, 471 N.E.2d at 1996The Supreme Court, in concluding its analysis in Beasley , stated: “[T]he suspension of a correctly imposed sentence is different from the failure to impose a required sentence; however the end results are the same. * * * Just as the United States Supreme Court has prohibited circumvention of statutory sentencing requirements by indefinitely suspending a sentence, we feel that that court would prohibit circumvention of a statutory sentencing requirement by a trial court’s failure to originally impose a correct sentence.” (Emphasis added.) 14 Ohio St.3d at 76 , 14 OBR at 512-513, 471 N.E.2d at	2	1996–2013
State v. Johnson, 08-Ma-72 (11-25-2008) neutral ohioctapp · 2008 2 sentences 2009No. 09MA72, 2008-Ohio-6206 . {¶ 12} Under the first prong appellate courts must "examine the sentencing court's compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law." Kalish at ¶ 26 (O'Connor, J., plurality opinion.) To satisfy this prong, the trial court must consider the statutory sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 , and impose a sentence that is within the statutory range for the relevant offenses. 2009No. 09MA72, 2008-Ohio-6206 . {¶ 44} Under the first prong, appellate courts must "examine the sentencing court's compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law." Kalish at ¶ 26 (O'Connor, J., plurality opinion.) To satisfy this prong, the trial court must consider the statutory sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 , and impose a sentence that is within the statutory range for the relevant offenses.	2	2009–2009
State v. Martin green ohioctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2005Martin, 136 Ohio App.3d at 359 . 2002See State v. King (Sept. 9, 1999), Marion App. No. 9-98-67, unreported; Martin, supra, 136 Ohio App.3d at 359 .	2	2002–2005
State v. Nuby green ohioctapp · 2016 1 sentence 2025A court may impose the longest jail term authorized under section 2929.24 of the Revised Code only upon offenders who commit the worst forms of the offense or upon offenders whose conduct and response to prior sanctions for prior offenses demonstrate that the imposition of the longest jail term is necessary to deter the offender from committing a future criminal offense. {¶17} R.C. 2929.22 does not “mandate that the record reveal the trial court’s consideration of the statutory sentencing factors.” State v. Nuby, 2016-Ohio-8157 , ¶ 13- 14 (7th Dist.), quoting State v. Nelson, 2007-Ohio-3459, ¶	1	2025–2025
Oregon v. Ice green scotus · 2009 2 sentences 2024State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470, ¶ 36 , abrogated on other grounds by Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 , 129 S.Ct. 711 (2009). 2024State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470, ¶ 36 , abrogated on other grounds by Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 , 129 S.Ct. 711 (2009).	1	2024–2024
State v. Johnson green ohioctapp · 2024	1	2024–2024
State v. Crawford neutral ohioctapp · 2022	1	2022–2022
State v. Savage green ohioctapp · 2019	1	2022–2022
State v. Ware neutral ohioctapp · 2018	1	2021–2021
State v. Havergne neutral ohioctapp · 2012	1	2021–2021
State v. Murphy green ohioctapp · 2013	1	2021–2021
State v. Maggette green ohioctapp · 2016	1	2020–2020
State v. Cargill green ohioctapp · 2016	1	2020–2020
State v. Brandon green ohioctapp · 2016	1	2019–2019
State v. Crandall neutral ohioctapp · 2016	1	2019–2019
State v. Smith green ohioctapp · 2014	1	2019–2019
State v. Lewis neutral ohioctapp · 2018	1	2018–2018
State v. Lloyd, 2006-L-185 (6-15-2007) neutral ohioctapp · 2007	1	2017–2017
State v. Delmanzo, 2007-L-218 (11-3-2008) green ohioctapp · 2008	1	2017–2017
State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion) green ohio · 2014	1	2016–2016
State v. Imber neutral ohioctapp · 2012	1	2015–2015
State v. Morefield neutral ohioctapp · 2014	1	2015–2015
State v. Holin green ohioctapp · 2007	1	2014–2014
State v. Ross neutral ohioctapp · 2013	1	2014–2014
State v. Mannarino green ohioctapp · 2013	1	2014–2014
State v. Gibson, Unpublished Decision (6-17-2004) green ohioctapp · 2004	1	2014–2014
State v. Weitbrecht green ohio · 1999	1	2012–2012

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11 (41) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12 (40) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14 (39) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08 (37) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.13 (19) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.11 (11) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.20 (10) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.19 (9) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.41 (7) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.11 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.11 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22 (6)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 83 (1993–2025) CA 18 (1988–2012) IL 14 (1985–2026) PA 13 (2017–2025) ND 7 (2019–2025) ME 5 (2013–2025) UT 3 (2006–2016) NJ 2 (2015–2015) AZ 2 (2004–2014) NC 2 (1989–1990)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check