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.
11 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 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. O'Neillgreen2 sentences2010With respect to the admissibility of chemical tests in a criminal proceeding, we have held: {¶ 31} “While the failure to properly inform a defendant of the consequences of a refusal to submit to testing may very well preclude the suspension of his license pursuant to R.C. 4511.191 and R.C. 4511.193, there is no provision in R.C. 4511.19 that requires compliance with implied consent procedures as a condition of the admissibility of chemical test results in DUI prosecutions.” Id.; accord State v. O’Neill (2000), 140 Ohio App.3d 48, 57 , 746 N.E.2d 654 . {¶ 32} This reasoning applies to the impli 2010With respect to the admissibility of chemical tests in a criminal proceeding, we have held: {¶ 31} “While the failure to properly inform a defendant of the consequences of a refusal to submit to testing may very well preclude the suspension of his license pursuant to R.C. 4511.191 and R.C. 4511.193, there is no provision in R.C. 4511.19 that requires compliance with implied consent procedures as a condition of the admissibility of chemical test results in DUI prosecutions.” Id.; accord State v. O’Neill (2000), 140 Ohio App.3d 48, 57 , 746 N.E.2d 654 . {¶ 32} This reasoning applies to the impli | 2 | 2 |
State v. Frenchgreen2 sentences2026The Court in that case held that “[e]videntiary objections challenging the competency, admissibility, relevancy, authenticity, and credibility of the chemical test results may still be raised.” Id. 2000The court held that "a defendant charged under R.C. 4511.19 (A)(1) through (4) who does not challenge the admissibility of chemical test results through a pre-trial motion to suppress waives the requirement on the state to lay a foundation for the admissibility of the test results at trial." Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Ulisgreen1 sentence2000French at 450-51; see, also, State v. Ulis (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 83 , 85 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Defiance v. Kretz
green
2 sentences2020However, “[t]he traditional distinction between a motion to suppress based upon a constitutional challenge and a motion in limine does not work as a bright-line rule where the motion to suppress is directed to breathalyzer test results based on a failure to comply with ODH regulations.” Defiance v. Kretz, supra, 60 Ohio St.3d at 4 . 1995However, “[t]he traditional distinction between a motion to suppress based upon a constitutional challenge and' a motion in limine does not work as a bright-line rule where the motion to suppress is directed to breathalyzer test results based on a failure to comply with ODH regulations.” Defiance v. Kretz, supra, 60 Ohio St.3d at 4 , 573 N.E.2d at 35 . | 3 | 1995–2020 |
Miller v. Bike Athletic Co.
green
1 sentence2000Appellee says: "If only substantial compliance with the Ohio Adm. Code is required as to the admissibility of chemical test readings for a strict liability statute, it is not logical that strict compliance should be the standard for HGN and walk-and-turn tests." This court declines appellee's invitation to abandon the reasoning we followed in State v. Homan , id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
City of Xenia v. Wallace
green
2 sentences1996The Supreme Court of Ohio considered the issue of which party has the burden of going forward when a defendant files a motion to suppress the results of a BAC breath test in Xenia v. Wallace (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 216 , 524 N.E.2d 889 . 1996The Supreme Court of Ohio considered the issue of which party has the burden of going forward when a defendant files a motion to suppress the results of a BAC breath test in Xenia v. Wallace (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 216 , 524 N.E.2d 889 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.
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.