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 1967–2024 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. Cartergreen2 sentences2002State v. Carter (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 593, 598 , 734 N.E.2d 345 . {¶ 90} It should also be noted that appellee did produce some documentation as to his income. 2002State v. Carter (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 593, 598 , 734 N.E.2d 345 . {¶ 90} It should also be noted that appellee did produce some documentation as to his income. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Issagreen1 sentence2024The court told the attorneys that they were not going to engage in “trial by ambush,” and it reiterated that Lathan could testify about the video, but it would not be played. {¶ 65} Generally speaking, “the admission of evidence lies within the broad discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court should not disturb evidentiary decisions in the absence of an abuse of discretion that has created material prejudice.” State v. Conway, 2006-Ohio-2815 , ¶ 62, citing State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2000See State v. Carter (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 593, 598 , 734 N.E.2d 345, 351 , citing State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112, 117 , 5 O.O.3d 98, 101 , 364 N.E.2d 1364, 1367-1368 . 2000See State v. Carter (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 593, 598 , 734 N.E.2d 345, 351 , citing State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112, 117 , 5 O.O.3d 98, 101 , 364 N.E.2d 1364, 1367-1368 . | 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. Childs
green
2 sentences2022“The purpose of the forfeiture rule is to encourage parties to call the court’s attention to an error at a time when the error can be ‘“avoided or corrected.”’” State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 , 2019-Ohio-4761 , 141 N.E.3d 169 , ¶ 10, quoting State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 122 , 489 N.E.2d 277 (1986), quoting State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56 , 236 N.E.2d 545 (1968), paragraph three of the syllabus. 2022“The purpose of the forfeiture rule is to encourage parties to call the court’s attention to an error at a time when the error can be ‘“avoided or corrected.”’” State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 , 2019-Ohio-4761 , 141 N.E.3d 169 , ¶ 10, quoting State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 122 , 489 N.E.2d 277 (1986), quoting State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56 , 236 N.E.2d 545 (1968), paragraph three of the syllabus. | 2 | 2019–2022 |
State v. Awan
green
2 sentences2022“The purpose of the forfeiture rule is to encourage parties to call the court’s attention to an error at a time when the error can be ‘“avoided or corrected.”’” State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 , 2019-Ohio-4761 , 141 N.E.3d 169 , ¶ 10, quoting State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 122 , 489 N.E.2d 277 (1986), quoting State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56 , 236 N.E.2d 545 (1968), paragraph three of the syllabus. 2022“The purpose of the forfeiture rule is to encourage parties to call the court’s attention to an error at a time when the error can be ‘“avoided or corrected.”’” State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 , 2019-Ohio-4761 , 141 N.E.3d 169 , ¶ 10, quoting State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 122 , 489 N.E.2d 277 (1986), quoting State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56 , 236 N.E.2d 545 (1968), paragraph three of the syllabus. | 2 | 2019–2022 |
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2022“The purpose of the forfeiture rule is to encourage parties to call the court’s attention to an error at a time when the error can be ‘“avoided or corrected.”’” State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 , 2019-Ohio-4761 , 141 N.E.3d 169 , ¶ 10, quoting State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 122 , 489 N.E.2d 277 (1986), quoting State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56 , 236 N.E.2d 545 (1968), paragraph three of the syllabus. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Scott
green
1 sentence2006Cf. State v. Scott, 101 Ohio St.3d 31 , 2004-Ohio-10 , 800 N.E.2d 1133 , ¶ 60-61. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Anderson v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2003"It is axiomatic that when a party fails to bring to the trial court's attention an error at a time when the error could be corrected, such error is waived on appeal." Anderson v. Anderson (2002), 147 Ohio App.3d 513 , 528 , 771 N.E.2d 303 . 2003"It is axiomatic that when a party fails to bring to the trial court's attention an error at a time when the error could be corrected, such error is waived on appeal." Anderson v. Anderson (2002), 147 Ohio App.3d 513 , 528 , 771 N.E.2d 303 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State ex rel. Smith v. Superior's Brand Meats, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002Smith, supra, at 411 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Tolbert
green
2 sentences2000Moreover, in State v. Tolbert (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 372 , 591 N.E.2d 325 , the court held that the failure to rule on a pretrial motion prior to trial constitutes error, but the error is harmless unless it adversely affects the substantial rights of the defendant. 2000Moreover, in State v. Tolbert (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 372 , 591 N.E.2d 325 , the court held that the failure to rule on a pretrial motion prior to trial constitutes error, but the error is harmless unless it adversely affects the substantial rights of the defendant. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Rhode Island v. Innis
green
1 sentence1984Cases after Miranda have explored independently the concepts of “custody” and “interrogation.” For instance, in Rhode Island v. Innis (1980), 446 U.S. 291, 301 , the United States Supreme Court held with reference to interrogation as follows: “* * * [T]he term ‘interrogation’ under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” Other courts have dealt with the suspect’s ri | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Knight
neutral
1 sentence1967The duty is upon the state to bring the defendant to trial speedily.” This court finally held under the circumstances that, “If, however, the matter [that is, Shafer’s right to a speedy trial without demand] having been brought to its attention, the state fails to promptly bring Shafer to trial on the pending indictments, his constitutional rights will be violated, and he will be entitled to a discharge.” Subsequently, the Court of Appeals for Hardin County in State v. Knight, 77 Ohio App. 214 , took a contrary view and held that under similar circumstances a defendant is not entitled to claim | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.