11 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2008 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mominee v. Scherbarthgreen2 sentences1998Id. at 291-292 , 28 OBR at 364-365, 503 N.E.2d at 733-734 (Douglas, J., concurring). *50 In determining the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, this court adheres to the principle that all such enactments enjoy a presumption of constitutional validity. 1998Id. at 291-292 , 28 OBR at 364-365, 503 N.E.2d at 733-734 (Douglas, J., concurring). *50 In determining the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, this court adheres to the principle that all such enactments enjoy a presumption of constitutional validity. | 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. Clay
green
2 sentences2005State v. Clay (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 250 , 298 N.E.2d 137 . 2005State v. Clay (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 250 , 298 N.E.2d 137 . | 4 | 2004–2005 |
Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board
green
2 sentences2003Bd. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 619 , 621 , or an arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable attitude on the part of the court. 2003Bd. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 619 , 621 , or an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable attitude on the part of the court. | 4 | 2002–2003 |
Argersinger v. Hamlin
green
2 sentences2008I. {¶ 4} Under his first assignment of error, Morgan contends that the trial court erred in not advising him of the dangers of proceeding pro se. {¶ 5} This Court adheres to the principle that the "[t]he constitutionally protected right to the assistance of counsel is absolute. `* * * [A]bsent a knowing and intelligent *Page 3 waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense * * * unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.'" State v. Tymcio (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 39 , 43 , 71 O.O.2d 22 , 325 N.E.2d 556 , quoting Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), 407 U.S. 25 , 37 , 92 S.Ct. 2006 , 32 L.Ed 2008I. {¶ 4} Under his first assignment of error, Morgan contends that the trial court erred in not advising him of the dangers of proceeding pro se. {¶ 5} This Court adheres to the principle that the "[t]he constitutionally protected right to the assistance of counsel is absolute. `* * * [A]bsent a knowing and intelligent *Page 3 waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense * * * unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.'" State v. Tymcio (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 39 , 43 , 71 O.O.2d 22 , 325 N.E.2d 556 , quoting Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), 407 U.S. 25 , 37 , 92 S.Ct. 2006 , 32 L.Ed | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Tymcio
green
2 sentences2008I. {¶ 4} Under his first assignment of error, Morgan contends that the trial court erred in not advising him of the dangers of proceeding pro se. {¶ 5} This Court adheres to the principle that the "[t]he constitutionally protected right to the assistance of counsel is absolute. `* * * [A]bsent a knowing and intelligent *Page 3 waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense * * * unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.'" State v. Tymcio (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 39 , 43 , 71 O.O.2d 22 , 325 N.E.2d 556 , quoting Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), 407 U.S. 25 , 37 , 92 S.Ct. 2006 , 32 L.Ed 2008I. {¶ 4} Under his first assignment of error, Morgan contends that the trial court erred in not advising him of the dangers of proceeding pro se. {¶ 5} This Court adheres to the principle that the "[t]he constitutionally protected right to the assistance of counsel is absolute. `* * * [A]bsent a knowing and intelligent *Page 3 waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense * * * unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.'" State v. Tymcio (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 39 , 43 , 71 O.O.2d 22 , 325 N.E.2d 556 , quoting Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), 407 U.S. 25 , 37 , 92 S.Ct. 2006 , 32 L.Ed | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Illinois v. Gates
green
2 sentences2004We have held that probable cause means `a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found,' Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , at 238, and the level of suspicion required for a Terry stop is obviously less demanding than for probable cause." White at 330. {¶ 9} In reviewing a motion to suppress, this court adheres to the standard of review as articulated in State v. Curry : "In a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and evaluate witness credibility. 2004We have held that probable cause means `a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found,' Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , at 238, and the level of suspicion required for a Terry stop is obviously less demanding than for probable cause." White at 330. {¶ 9} In reviewing a motion to suppress, this court adheres to the standard of review as articulated in State v. Curry : "In a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and evaluate witness credibility. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
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.