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 1986–2025 4 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. Lewisgreen1 sentence2025Konk at ¶ 10, citing State v. Lewis, 2020-Ohio-3762, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Schuster v. Schustergreen1 sentence2024And “special proceeding” is defined as “an action or proceeding that is specially created by statute and that prior to 1853 was not denoted as an action at law or a suit in equity.” R.C. 2505.02(A)(2); see In re Estate of Wyckoff, 166 Ohio St. 354 , 358 (1957), quoting Schuster v. Schuster, 84 Minn. 403, 407 (1901) (“‘Where the law confers a right, and authorizes a special application to a court to enforce it, the proceeding is special, within the ordinary meaning of the term “special proceedings.”‘”). {¶ 78} The core principle for appellate review in the Ohio Constitution and these enabling s | 1 | 1 |
State v. Claytongreen1 sentence2023“Counsel chose a strategy that proved ineffective, but the fact that 14 there was another and better strategy available does not amount to a breach of an essential duty to his client.” State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d 45, 49 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bauergreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., State v. Bauer (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 83 , 15 O.O.3d 122 , 399 N.E.2d 555 (an accused who escapes the jurisdiction, thereby rendering himself inaccessible to the court, waives his right to a speedy trial); State v. Gibson (1992), 75 Ohio App.3d 388 , 599 N.E.2d 438 ; State v. Eldridge, Scioto App. No. 02CA2842, 2003-Ohio-1198 , 2003 WL 1145442 ; State v. Fultz, Ross App. No. 06CA2923, 2007-Ohio-3619 , 2007 WL 2051554 . {¶ 18} Under either perspective, the core principle remains the same: “ ‘[W]e should not allow [defendants] to use their slipperiness to claim the protection’ ” of spe 2011See, e.g., State v. Bauer (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 83 , 15 O.O.3d 122 , 399 N.E.2d 555 (an accused who escapes the jurisdiction, thereby rendering himself inaccessible to the court, waives his right to a speedy trial); State v. Gibson (1992), 75 Ohio App.3d 388 , 599 N.E.2d 438 ; State v. Eldridge, Scioto App. No. 02CA2842, 2003-Ohio-1198 , 2003 WL 1145442 ; State v. Fultz, Ross App. No. 06CA2923, 2007-Ohio-3619 , 2007 WL 2051554 . {¶ 18} Under either perspective, the core principle remains the same: “ ‘[W]e should not allow [defendants] to use their slipperiness to claim the protection’ ” of spe | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2020The core of our analysis, however, is “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” State v. Pickens, 141 Ohio St.3d 462 , 2014- Ohio-5445, 25 N.E.3d 1023, ¶ 110 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶72} We first reject English’s claim that the prosecutor’s elicitation and improper use of character and other-acts evidence, referenced in the previous assignment of error, was misconduct that resulted in an unfair trial. 2020The core of our analysis, however, is “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” State v. Pickens, 141 Ohio St.3d 462 , 2014- Ohio-5445, 25 N.E.3d 1023, ¶ 110 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶72} We first reject English’s claim that the prosecutor’s elicitation and improper use of character and other-acts evidence, referenced in the previous assignment of error, was misconduct that resulted in an unfair trial. | 2 | 2002–2020 |
Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook
green
1 sentence2024The core inquiry pursuant to Section 15.50 is “whether the covenant contains limitations as to time, geographical area, and scope of activity to be restrained that are reasonable and do not impose a greater restraint than necessary to protect the goodwill or other business interest of the promisee.” Marsh USA, Inc. v. Cook, 354 S.W.3d 764 (2011). {¶28} Texas courts, including the Texas Supreme Court, have held that industry- wide exclusions are unreasonable and overbroad, as are those that prevent contact with clients with whom the employee had no dealings during his or her employment. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Pickens (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2020The core of our analysis, however, is “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” State v. Pickens, 141 Ohio St.3d 462 , 2014- Ohio-5445, 25 N.E.3d 1023, ¶ 110 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶72} We first reject English’s claim that the prosecutor’s elicitation and improper use of character and other-acts evidence, referenced in the previous assignment of error, was misconduct that resulted in an unfair trial. 2020The core of our analysis, however, is “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” State v. Pickens, 141 Ohio St.3d 462 , 2014- Ohio-5445, 25 N.E.3d 1023, ¶ 110 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶72} We first reject English’s claim that the prosecutor’s elicitation and improper use of character and other-acts evidence, referenced in the previous assignment of error, was misconduct that resulted in an unfair trial. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Boston
green
1 sentence2019Taylor formulates the core of the test for excited utterances as being whether "the statement * * * even if not strictly contemporaneous with its exciting cause, was made before there had been time for such nervous excitement to lose a domination over [the speaker's] reflective faculties, so that such domination continued to remain sufficient to make his statements * * * the unreflective and sincere expression of his actual impressions and beliefs." Id. at 301. {¶ 119} Taylor then does note that: "In the cases of statements made by children who say they were sexually assaulted, we have upheld | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Fultz, 06ca2923 (7-13-2007)
green
1 sentence2011See, e.g., State v. Bauer (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 83 , 15 O.O.3d 122 , 399 N.E.2d 555 (an accused who escapes the jurisdiction, thereby rendering himself inaccessible to the court, waives his right to a speedy trial); State v. Gibson (1992), 75 Ohio App.3d 388 , 599 N.E.2d 438 ; State v. Eldridge, Scioto App. No. 02CA2842, 2003-Ohio-1198 , 2003 WL 1145442 ; State v. Fultz, Ross App. No. 06CA2923, 2007-Ohio-3619 , 2007 WL 2051554 . {¶ 18} Under either perspective, the core principle remains the same: “ ‘[W]e should not allow [defendants] to use their slipperiness to claim the protection’ ” of spe | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Gums, Unpublished Decision (6-22-2006)
green
1 sentence2011State v. Gums, Cuyahoga App. No. 86760, 2006-Ohio-3159 , 2006 WL 1704528 , ¶ 22, quoting State v. Triplett (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 566 , 679 N.E.2d 290 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Triplett
green
2 sentences2011State v. Gums, Cuyahoga App. No. 86760, 2006-Ohio-3159 , 2006 WL 1704528 , ¶ 22, quoting State v. Triplett (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 566 , 679 N.E.2d 290 . 2011State v. Gums, Cuyahoga App. No. 86760, 2006-Ohio-3159 , 2006 WL 1704528 , ¶ 22, quoting State v. Triplett (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 566 , 679 N.E.2d 290 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Gibson
green
2 sentences2011See, e.g., State v. Bauer (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 83 , 15 O.O.3d 122 , 399 N.E.2d 555 (an accused who escapes the jurisdiction, thereby rendering himself inaccessible to the court, waives his right to a speedy trial); State v. Gibson (1992), 75 Ohio App.3d 388 , 599 N.E.2d 438 ; State v. Eldridge, Scioto App. No. 02CA2842, 2003-Ohio-1198 , 2003 WL 1145442 ; State v. Fultz, Ross App. No. 06CA2923, 2007-Ohio-3619 , 2007 WL 2051554 . {¶ 18} Under either perspective, the core principle remains the same: “ ‘[W]e should not allow [defendants] to use their slipperiness to claim the protection’ ” of spe 2011See, e.g., State v. Bauer (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 83 , 15 O.O.3d 122 , 399 N.E.2d 555 (an accused who escapes the jurisdiction, thereby rendering himself inaccessible to the court, waives his right to a speedy trial); State v. Gibson (1992), 75 Ohio App.3d 388 , 599 N.E.2d 438 ; State v. Eldridge, Scioto App. No. 02CA2842, 2003-Ohio-1198 , 2003 WL 1145442 ; State v. Fultz, Ross App. No. 06CA2923, 2007-Ohio-3619 , 2007 WL 2051554 . {¶ 18} Under either perspective, the core principle remains the same: “ ‘[W]e should not allow [defendants] to use their slipperiness to claim the protection’ ” of spe | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.
green
1 sentence2006Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105 , 1996-Ohio-336 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.
green
1 sentence2006Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105 , 1996-Ohio-336 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. Anthony John Romanello, Victor Antonio Mendez and Gerald Thomas Vertucci
green
1 sentence2005"Such compelling prejudice does not arise where the conflict concerns only minor or peripheral matters which are not at the core of the defense." United States v. Romanello (C.A.5, 1984), 726 F.2d 173 , 177 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Maurer
green
1 sentence2002Accordingly, the effect of any alleged misconduct "must be considered in the light of the whole case." Maurer, supra, at 266 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Landrum
green
1 sentence2002The core of that analysis must be "the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor." State v. Landrum (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 107 , 112 , citing Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 209 , 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 947 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Wilmoth
green
2 sentences1986The core of their analysis rests upon views expressed in State v. Williams, supra, and State v. Wilmoth, supra ( 1 Ohio St. 3d 118 ). 1986The core of their analysis rests upon views expressed in State v. Williams, supra, and State v. Wilmoth, supra ( 1 Ohio St. 3d 118 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence1986The core of their analysis rests upon views expressed in State v. Williams, supra, and State v. Wilmoth, supra ( 1 Ohio St. 3d 118 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.