11 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2025 5 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. Normangreen2 sentences2025"This includes the omission of the administration of the oath to a witness." Highfield v. Highfield, 2013-Ohio-3466 , ¶ 8 (6th Dist.), citing Stores Realty Co. v. Cleveland, 41 Ohio St.2d 41 (1975), syllabus. "'This is because the failure to administer an oath can easily be corrected at the time.'" Stainfield v. Jefferson Emergency Rescue Dist., 2010-Ohio-2282 , ¶ 27 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Norman, 137 Ohio App.3d 184, 198 (1st Dist.1999). -8- Butler CA2025-03-022 {¶ 33} Therefore, "an attorney may not fail to object and then cite the lack of an oath as error." Id. 2025"This includes the omission of the administration of the oath to a witness." Highfield v. Highfield, 2013-Ohio-3466 , ¶ 8 (6th Dist.), citing Stores Realty Co. v. Cleveland, 41 Ohio St.2d 41 (1975), syllabus. "'This is because the failure to administer an oath can easily be corrected at the time.'" Stainfield v. Jefferson Emergency Rescue Dist., 2010-Ohio-2282 , ¶ 27 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Norman, 137 Ohio App.3d 184, 198 (1st Dist.1999). -8- Butler CA2025-03-022 {¶ 33} Therefore, "an attorney may not fail to object and then cite the lack of an oath as error." Id. | 2 | 8 |
Stores Realty Co. v. City of Clevelandgreen2 sentences2025"This includes the omission of the administration of the oath to a witness." Highfield v. Highfield, 2013-Ohio-3466 , ¶ 8 (6th Dist.), citing Stores Realty Co. v. Cleveland, 41 Ohio St.2d 41 (1975), syllabus. "'This is because the failure to administer an oath can easily be corrected at the time.'" Stainfield v. Jefferson Emergency Rescue Dist., 2010-Ohio-2282 , ¶ 27 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Norman, 137 Ohio App.3d 184, 198 (1st Dist.1999). -8- Butler CA2025-03-022 {¶ 33} Therefore, "an attorney may not fail to object and then cite the lack of an oath as error." Id. 2015See Stores Realty Co. v. Cleveland, 41 Ohio St.2d 41, 43 , 322 N.E.2d 629 (1975). “‘This is because the failure to administer an oath can easily be corrected at the time; an attorney may not fail to object and then cite the lack of an oath as error.’” (Citation omitted.) In re Leonard H., supra. {¶ 92} Here, prior to the witness testifying, the trial court advised the witness of certain matters or manners, including to speak out loud and answer honestly. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Wilmothgreen1 sentence2025Compare State v. Wilmoth, 22 Ohio St.3d 251, 266 (1986) (describing a search warrant as “defective” where the issuing magistrate “fail[ed] to use the proper words in administering the oath”) and Crim.R. 41(C)(1) (though a search-warrant affidavit can be “communicated . . . by reliable electronic means,” the affiant must nonetheless “be placed under oath” and must “swear to or affirm” the contents of the affidavit) with State v. Jones, 2012-Ohio-1301, ¶ 56-59 (7th Dist.) (if an affiant signs a written statement before an officer authorized to administer an oath, the oath requirement is complied | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2025Compare State v. Wilmoth, 22 Ohio St.3d 251, 266 (1986) (describing a search warrant as “defective” where the issuing magistrate “fail[ed] to use the proper words in administering the oath”) and Crim.R. 41(C)(1) (though a search-warrant affidavit can be “communicated . . . by reliable electronic means,” the affiant must nonetheless “be placed under oath” and must “swear to or affirm” the contents of the affidavit) with State v. Jones, 2012-Ohio-1301, ¶ 56-59 (7th Dist.) (if an affiant signs a written statement before an officer authorized to administer an oath, the oath requirement is complied | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cincinnati Finance Co. v. First Discount Corp.
neutral
1 sentence2025Co. v. First Discount Corp., 59 Ohio App. 131 , 132– 133 (1st Dist. 1938) and In re Lewandowski, 1986 WL 9211 , *1 (7th Dist. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Powell v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission
green
2 sentences2017Rights Comm., 2016-Ohio-7486 , 64 N.E.3d 1025 , ¶ 16 (8th Dist.) (Emphasis added.) {¶ 20} Here, the administrative rule stating that a housing discrimination charge can be made via a statement that the charges were made under the penalty of perjury subtracts from the governing Revised Code section requiring that the charge "shall" be made in writing "under oath." Thus, the requirement set forth in the Ohio Revised Code governs since the applicable OAC regulation conflicts. {¶ 21} In Powell v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission , 51 Ohio App.2d 197 , 367 N.E.2d 896 , 897 (10th Dist. 1976), the 10th D 2017Rights Comm., 2016-Ohio-7486 , 64 N.E.3d 1025 , ¶ 16 (8th Dist.) (Emphasis added.) {¶ 20} Here, the administrative rule stating that a housing discrimination charge can be made via a statement that the charges were made under the penalty of perjury subtracts from the governing Revised Code section requiring that the charge "shall" be made in writing "under oath." Thus, the requirement set forth in the Ohio Revised Code governs since the applicable OAC regulation conflicts. {¶ 21} In Powell v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission , 51 Ohio App.2d 197 , 367 N.E.2d 896 , 897 (10th Dist. 1976), the 10th D | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.