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 3 courts 1991–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Camburn v. Camburngreen2 sentences2018See In re Disqualification of Squire , 110 Ohio St.3d 1202 , 2005-Ohio-7157 , 850 N.E.2d 709 , ¶ 3. 2018See In re Disqualification of Squire , 110 Ohio St.3d 1202 , 2005-Ohio-7157 , 850 N.E.2d 709 , ¶ 3. | 6 | 6 |
In re Disqualification of Calabresegreen1 sentence2015See In re Disqualification of Squire, 110 Ohio St.3d 1202 , 2005-Ohio-7157 , 850 N.E.2d 709, ¶ 3 . {¶ 6} Turning to the merits, [a]n alleged ex parte communication constitutes grounds for disqualification when there is ‘proof that the communication * * * addressed substantive matters in the pending case.’ In re Disqualification of Calabrese, 100 Ohio St.3d 1224 , 2002-Ohio-7475 , 798 N.E.2d 10 , ¶ 2. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nawashgreen1 sentence2015See In re Disqualification of Squire, 110 Ohio St.3d 1202 , 2005-Ohio-7157 , 850 N.E.2d 709, ¶ 3 . {¶ 6} Turning to the merits, [a]n alleged ex parte communication constitutes grounds for disqualification when there is ‘proof that the communication * * * addressed substantive matters in the pending case.’ In re Disqualification of Calabrese, 100 Ohio St.3d 1224 , 2002-Ohio-7475 , 798 N.E.2d 10 , ¶ 2. | 1 | 1 |
Butland v. Butlandgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., In re Disqualification of Leskovyansky (1999), 88 Ohio St.3d 1210 , 723 N.E.2d 1099 . 2007See, e.g., In re Disqualification of Leskovyansky (1999), 88 Ohio St.3d 1210 , 723 N.E.2d 1099 . | 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. Maurer
green
2 sentences2014Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d at 259 , 473 N.E.2d 768 , citing State v. Wilson, 8 Ohio App.3d 216, 219-220 , 456 N.E.2d 1287 (8th Dist.1982). {¶46} For these reasons, we hold that the time requirement of Crim.R. 45(D) did not apply to the state’s motion in limine. 2014Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d at 259 , 473 N.E.2d 768 , citing State v. Wilson, 8 Ohio App.3d 216, 219-220 , 456 N.E.2d 1287 (8th Dist.1982). {¶46} For these reasons, we hold that the time requirement of Crim.R. 45(D) did not apply to the state’s motion in limine. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
City of Defiance v. Kretz
green
2 sentences2014Hamilton No. C-880737, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 159 (Jan. 24, 1990.) Thus Morales’s position that the seven-day rule in Crim.R. 45(D) applies to motions in limine would create practical difficulties in application. {¶45} Further, as we have previously noted, a trial court’s disposition of a motion in limine such as the one in this case is ultimately irrelevant, because the trial court may change its ruling on the disputed evidence when it is presented in context at trial, Kretz, 60 Ohio St.3d at 4 , 573 N.E.2d 32 , and the issue must be revisited at trial to preserve the party’s position on the ev 2014Hamilton No. C-880737, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 159 (Jan. 24, 1990.) Thus Morales’s position that the seven-day rule in Crim.R. 45(D) applies to motions in limine would create practical difficulties in application. {¶45} Further, as we have previously noted, a trial court’s disposition of a motion in limine such as the one in this case is ultimately irrelevant, because the trial court may change its ruling on the disputed evidence when it is presented in context at trial, Kretz, 60 Ohio St.3d at 4 , 573 N.E.2d 32 , and the issue must be revisited at trial to preserve the party’s position on the ev | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2014Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d at 259 , 473 N.E.2d 768 , citing State v. Wilson, 8 Ohio App.3d 216, 219-220 , 456 N.E.2d 1287 (8th Dist.1982). {¶46} For these reasons, we hold that the time requirement of Crim.R. 45(D) did not apply to the state’s motion in limine. 2014Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d at 259 , 473 N.E.2d 768 , citing State v. Wilson, 8 Ohio App.3d 216, 219-220 , 456 N.E.2d 1287 (8th Dist.1982). {¶46} For these reasons, we hold that the time requirement of Crim.R. 45(D) did not apply to the state’s motion in limine. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In re Davis
green
1 sentence2007The judge in Davis did not comply with this seven-day requirement; he waited 17 months before entering the judgment. 84 Ohio St.3d at 521-522 , 705 N.E.2d 1219 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Fleming
green
2 sentences1999In In re Fleming (1991), 76 Ohio App.3d 30 , 600 N.E.2d 1112 , the Sixth Appellate District found that “the proper remedy in cases such as this, where a trial court fails to meet the seven-day requirement imposed by R.C. 2151.35(B)(3) * * * would be for counsel for the parents or counsel for [the agency] to file, upon expiration of the seven-day time period, a petition for a writ of procedendo.” Id. at 40-41 , 600 N.E.2d at 1119 . 1999In In re Fleming (1991), 76 Ohio App.3d 30 , 600 N.E.2d 1112 , the Sixth Appellate District found that “the proper remedy in cases such as this, where a trial court fails to meet the seven-day requirement imposed by R.C. 2151.35(B)(3) * * * would be for counsel for the parents or counsel for [the agency] to file, upon expiration of the seven-day time period, a petition for a writ of procedendo.” Id. at 40-41 , 600 N.E.2d at 1119 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy District
green
2 sentences1991Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist. (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 102, 107 , 56 O.O.2d 58, 60 , 271 N.E.2d 834, 837 . 1991Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist. (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 102, 107 , 56 O.O.2d 58, 60 , 271 N.E.2d 834, 837 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.