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 1 courts 2013–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Boczar, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2005)
neutral
2 sentences2013No. 2004-A-0063, 2005-Ohio-6910, ¶ 38 . 2013No. 2004-A-0063, 2005-Ohio-6910, ¶ 38 . {¶28} The delegation of authority to the director of health to establish the appropriate methods for determining the amount of alcohol in a defendant’s bodily substances does not conflict with any Rule of Evidence. | 10 | 2013–2013 |
State v. O'Neill
neutral
1 sentence2014Portage No. 2012-P-0016, 2013-Ohio-2619, ¶¶ 16-17 . “ ‘ When a statute does not conflict with a Rule of Evidence, a statute can control the admissibility of evidence.’ ”O’Neil at ¶ 16, quoting State v. Cross, 11th Dist. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Canino
green
1 sentence2014“In order to demonstrate [that] the legislature infringed upon the judiciary’s power to enact evidentiary rules[,] appellant must demonstrate [that] the legislation contradicts or is an attempt to supersede an existing evidentiary rule.” State v. Canino, 2013-Ohio-551 , 986 N.E.2d 1112 , ¶ 28 (11th Dist.); Lucarelli, 2013-Ohio-1606 at ¶ 31 ; State v. O’Neil, 11th Dist. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Lucarelli
green
1 sentence2014“In order to demonstrate [that] the legislature infringed upon the judiciary’s power to enact evidentiary rules[,] appellant must demonstrate [that] the legislation contradicts or is an attempt to supersede an existing evidentiary rule.” State v. Canino, 2013-Ohio-551 , 986 N.E.2d 1112 , ¶ 28 (11th Dist.); Lucarelli, 2013-Ohio-1606 at ¶ 31 ; State v. O’Neil, 11th Dist. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.