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 2012–2025 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. Elkinsgreen2 sentences2025State v. Elkins, 2023-Ohio-1358, ¶ 22 (5th Dist.). {¶21} Mroczka’ sole Assignment of Error is overruled. {¶22} The judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 2025State v. Elkins, 2023-Ohio-1358, ¶ 22 (5th Dist.). {¶42} Harris’ Third Assignment of Error is overruled. {¶43} The judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. | 3 | 3 |
Oregon v. Icegreen2 sentences2012See Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (an abuse of discretion “implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable”). {¶22} The Supreme Court of Ohio held in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2010-Ohio-6320 , “[f]or all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Oregon v. Ice [ (2009), 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 ], does not revive Ohio's former consecutive-sentencing statutory provisions, R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A), which were held unconstitutional in State v. Foster. 2012See Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (an abuse of discretion “implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable”). {¶22} The Supreme Court of Ohio held in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2010-Ohio-6320 , “[f]or all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Oregon v. Ice [ (2009), 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 ], does not revive Ohio's former consecutive-sentencing statutory provisions, R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A), which were held unconstitutional in State v. Foster. | 3 | 3 |
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen2 sentences2012See Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (an abuse of discretion “implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable”). {¶22} The Supreme Court of Ohio held in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2010-Ohio-6320 , “[f]or all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Oregon v. Ice [ (2009), 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 ], does not revive Ohio's former consecutive-sentencing statutory provisions, R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A), which were held unconstitutional in State v. Foster. 2012See Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (an abuse of discretion “implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.”). {¶24} The Supreme Court of Ohio held in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2010-Ohio-6320 , “[f]or all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Oregon v. Ice [ (2009), 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 ], does not revive Ohio's former consecutive-sentencing statutory provisions, R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A), which were held unconstitutional in State v. Foster. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Hodgegreen2 sentences2012See Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (an abuse of discretion “implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable”). {¶22} The Supreme Court of Ohio held in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2010-Ohio-6320 , “[f]or all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Oregon v. Ice [ (2009), 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 ], does not revive Ohio's former consecutive-sentencing statutory provisions, R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A), which were held unconstitutional in State v. Foster. 2012See Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (an abuse of discretion “implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable”). {¶22} The Supreme Court of Ohio held in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2010-Ohio-6320 , “[f]or all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Oregon v. Ice [ (2009), 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 ], does not revive Ohio's former consecutive-sentencing statutory provisions, R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A), which were held unconstitutional in State v. Foster. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Packardgreen1 sentence2023Hamilton No. C-210587, 2022-Ohio-2076, ¶ 13 ; see also State v. Packard, 52 Ohio App.3d 99 (1988), paragraph four of the syllabus (“In the absence of specific findings pertaining to the weight given to factors of length of delay, reason for delay and the resulting prejudice in a trial court’s decision to dismiss an indictment for violation of an accused’s constitutional right to a speedy trial, the court of appeals should not determine an appeal from such a decision; remand is required.”); State v. Alcorn, 12th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vanzandt (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2020See State v. Vanzandt, 142 Ohio St.3d 223 , 2015- Ohio-236, 28 N.E.3d 1267, ¶ 7 (“We primarily seek to determine legislative intent from the plain language of a statute”). 2020See State v. Vanzandt, 142 Ohio St.3d 223 , 2015- Ohio-236, 28 N.E.3d 1267, ¶ 7 (“We primarily seek to determine legislative intent from the plain language of a statute”). | 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. Moyer
neutral
2 sentences2019Moyer, supra, 2019-Ohio-1187, ¶ 34 . {¶21} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 2019Moyer, supra, 2019-Ohio-1187, ¶ 34 . {¶43} Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled. | 3 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Wilson
neutral
1 sentence2023Hamilton No. C-210587, 2022-Ohio-2076, ¶ 13 ; see also State v. Packard, 52 Ohio App.3d 99 (1988), paragraph four of the syllabus (“In the absence of specific findings pertaining to the weight given to factors of length of delay, reason for delay and the resulting prejudice in a trial court’s decision to dismiss an indictment for violation of an accused’s constitutional right to a speedy trial, the court of appeals should not determine an appeal from such a decision; remand is required.”); State v. Alcorn, 12th Dist. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2020While Eberhardt may disagree with the weight given to these factors by the trial judge, Eberhardt’s sentence was within the applicable statutory range and therefore, we have no basis for concluding that it is contrary to law. {¶91} Eberhardt has failed to clearly and convincingly show that the trial court failed to consider the principles of felony sentencing, or that the maximum sentence is otherwise contrary to law. 4.2 Consecutive sentences. {¶92} Eberhardt further argues that the record does not support running the sentence in the present case consecutively to a sentence he is already serv | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.