75 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1907–2026 18 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Matter of A.P., 08ap-186 (2-3-2009)green2 sentences2024No. 08AP- 186, 2009-Ohio-438, ¶ 5-6 (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying request for continuance where the request is made the day of the hearing after parent failed to appear and counsel is unable to give a reason for the parent’s absence or explain the parent’s whereabouts). {¶ 16} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(A)(2), the trial court is to hold the PCC hearing no later than 120 days after the agency files the PCC motion except for “good cause” shown for a reasonable continuance. 2024No. 08AP-186, 2009-Ohio-438, ¶ 5-6 (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying request for continuance where the request is made the day of the hearing after parent failed to appear and counsel is unable to give a reason for the parent’s absence or explain the parent’s whereabouts). | 3 | 3 |
In re K.J.green2 sentences2026In re K.J., 2018-Ohio-471, ¶ 22 (10th Dist.), citing B.G.W., 2008-Ohio-3693, at ¶ 24-28 (10th Dist.) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance request made on the day of hearing where parent had failed to show a commitment and willingness to meet the case plan objectives during the pendency of the case). {¶ 37} Mother does not argue the result of the trial would have been different had she been granted a continuance. 2024See In re K.J., 2018-Ohio-471 , 107 N.E.3d 50, ¶ 21 (10th Dist.) (“by the time of the PCC hearing, the children had been in FCCS’s custody for more than two years, and granting a continuance on the day of the hearing would have presented an inconvenience to opposing counsel * * * as well as prolonging the accomplishment of the ultimate goal of establishing permanency for the children”); In re E.C., 12th Dist. | 2 | 2 |
Potter v. City of Troygreen2 sentences2001The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve and file opposing affidavits." Although this rule mentions a hearing in the context of summary judgment motions, various courts, including this one, have held that "Civ.R. 56(C) does not require an oral hearing on every motion for summary judgment." Smith v. Werner (March 6, 1986), Auglaize App. No. 2-84-17, unreported, 1986 WL 2982 (citing Gates Mills Investment Co. v. Pepper Pike (1978), 59 Ohio App.2d 155 ) ; see also Potter v. City of Troy (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 372 , 378 (citations omitted); Brown v. Akron Beacon Journal Publishing C 1999See Potter v. Troy (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 372 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ungergreen2 sentences2019State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981), syllabus. 2019The local rule further provides that “[n]o case will be continued on the day of hearing except for good cause shown.” Id. {¶7} Moreover, the decision to grant or deny a continuance lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and requires a balancing of “any potential prejudice to a [party against] concerns such as a court’s right to control its own docket and the public’s interest in the prompt and efficient dispatch of justice.” State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67 (1981). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Maygreen2 sentences2020See State v. May, 72 Ohio App.3d 664, 667 , 595 N.E.2d 980 ([8th Dist.]1991) (“in order to oppose the application for expungement, the prosecutor need only file an objection with the court prior to the day of hearing and specify *** the reasons which he believes justify denial of the application”). 2020See State v. May, 72 Ohio App.3d 664, 667 , 595 N.E.2d 980 ([8th Dist.]1991) (“in order to oppose the application for expungement, the prosecutor need only file an objection with the court prior to the day of hearing and specify *** the reasons which he believes justify denial of the application”). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Contempt of Morrisgreen2 sentences2019Cuyahoga Nos. 86771 and 86777, 2007-Ohio-68, ¶ 125-127 (where the trial court ordered husband to pay $680,000 by 4:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing or face 10 days’ incarceration, husband did not voluntarily pay his contempt purge); In re Contempt of Morris, 110 Ohio App.3d 475, 479 (8th Dist.1996) (although an attorney paid his fine stemming from a finding of contempt, an appeal of the contempt finding was not moot because the attorney “was ordered by the trial court to pay his fine before he left the courtroom”). 2007In support of that proposition, Husband relies on our recent opinions in State v. Fortson , Cuyahoga App. No. 79501, 2002-Ohio-1 ; In re Contempt of Morris (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 475 , 479 . | 1 | 2 |
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermillgreen1 sentence2026And even if we were to assume that Stansell was provided notice of the September 22, 2025 hearing that same day, “a party must be given reasonable notice that is sufficient to allow that party to prepare a defense and then must be provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard before an order requires payment and simultaneously prohibits the exercise of a legal right.” Chiro v. Foley, 2014-Ohio-3728, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), citing Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
In re K.R.green1 sentence2026In re K.R., 2023-Ohio-359, ¶ 18 (10th Dist.) (no abuse of discretion in denying continuance request where father did not argue granting the continuance “would have impacted the trial court’s ultimate decision” regarding permanent custody). | 1 | 1 |
In Re B.G.W., 08ap-181 (7-24-2008)green1 sentence2026In re K.J., 2018-Ohio-471, ¶ 22 (10th Dist.), citing B.G.W., 2008-Ohio-3693, at ¶ 24-28 (10th Dist.) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance request made on the day of hearing where parent had failed to show a commitment and willingness to meet the case plan objectives during the pendency of the case). {¶ 37} Mother does not argue the result of the trial would have been different had she been granted a continuance. | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton v. Hamiltongreen1 sentence2026In appeals of civil cases, plain error is not favored and is only applicable in the rare case in which the error “‘seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.’” In re S.M., 2025-Ohio-5144, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.), quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton, 2016-Ohio-5900, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.); In re T.R. at ¶ 25; Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997), syllabus. {¶ 50} With respect to the juvenile court’s finding related to parenting classes, Kedzierski testified that after she made | 1 | 1 |
In re S.M.green1 sentence2026In appeals of civil cases, plain error is not favored and is only applicable in the rare case in which the error “‘seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.’” In re S.M., 2025-Ohio-5144, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.), quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton, 2016-Ohio-5900, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.); In re T.R. at ¶ 25; Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997), syllabus. {¶ 50} With respect to the juvenile court’s finding related to parenting classes, Kedzierski testified that after she made | 1 | 1 |
Chiro v. Foleygreen1 sentence2026And even if we were to assume that Stansell was provided notice of the September 22, 2025 hearing that same day, “a party must be given reasonable notice that is sufficient to allow that party to prepare a defense and then must be provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard before an order requires payment and simultaneously prohibits the exercise of a legal right.” Chiro v. Foley, 2014-Ohio-3728, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), citing Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2025“Trial courts do have a duty ‘to assure that a client shall not be prejudiced as a result of the withdrawal of counsel.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Taylor v. Taylor, 2013-Ohio-2341, ¶ 21 (2d Dist.), citing Bennett v. Bennett, 86 Ohio App.3d 343, 347 (8th Dist. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Bennettgreen1 sentence2025“Trial courts do have a duty ‘to assure that a client shall not be prejudiced as a result of the withdrawal of counsel.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Taylor v. Taylor, 2013-Ohio-2341, ¶ 21 (2d Dist.), citing Bennett v. Bennett, 86 Ohio App.3d 343, 347 (8th Dist. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Beer v. Griffithgreen1 sentence2024Beer v. Griffith, 54 Ohio St.2d 440, 441-442 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
In re E.C.green1 sentence2024Butler No. CA2016-01- 014, 2016-Ohio-2774, ¶ 14 (“[i]n light of the duration of the case, E.C.’s need for permanency, Father’s failure to complete any of the services recommended by the agency, and Father’s lack of involvement with E.C., we find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion for a continuance”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dowellgreen1 sentence2023Cuyahoga No. 110629, 2022-Ohio-615, ¶14 (“…Crim.R. 25(B) does not prohibit another judge from presiding over postconviction proceedings if the original judge is unable to perform those duties for any reason.”) Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00063 6 {¶12} In this case, the original judge, who had already sentenced the appellant prior to her first appeal, was unavailable on the day the hearing was scheduled for re- imposition of the appellant’s sentence. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Alvelogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Maygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Janosek v. Janosek, Unpublished Decision (1-11-2007)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McAllistergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dollries v. Dollriesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hensley v. City of Columbusgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sexton v. City of Masongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rogers v. Tennesseegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bouie v. City of Columbiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| In the Matter of I.R., Unpublished Decision (12-13-2005)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Garnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Beemangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hooten v. Safe Auto Insurance
green
2 sentences2014Co., 100 Ohio St.3d 8 , 2003-Ohio-4829 , ¶ 14. 2005Co., 100 Ohio St.3d 8 , 2003-Ohio-4829 , the day of hearing, i.e., the day on which the trial court could consider and decide defendants' motion, was February 12, 2004. 2 Timberlake does not dispute that she did not file her affidavit until February 26, 2004. | 3 | 2005–2014 |
Ungar v. Sarafite
green
2 sentences2004Whether a trial court has abused its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance depends upon the circumstances, "`particularly * * * the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.'" Ungar v. Sarafite (1964), 376 U.S. 575 , 589 , 84 S.Ct. 841 , 11 L.Ed.2d 921 . {¶ 29} In this case, the record shows that the order in the criminal case was filed on July 22, 2003, but Angela waited until October 3, 2003, the day of the hearing, to seek a continuance. 2004Whether a trial court has abused its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance depends upon the circumstances, "`particularly * * * the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.'" Ungar v. Sarafite (1964), 376 U.S. 575 , 589 , 84 S.Ct. 841 , 11 L.Ed.2d 921 . {¶ 29} In this case, the record shows that the order in the criminal case was filed on July 22, 2003, but Angela waited until October 3, 2003, the day of the hearing, to seek a continuance. | 2 | 2004–2016 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2008He argues this placed unreasonable constraints on his attorney, who could not seek "mitigation evidence" for purposes of the resentencing, where he faced both the potential of additional prison time and the inclusion of mandatory postrelease control. {¶ 19} To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show two components: (1) "`that counsel's performance was deficient' and (2) `that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.'" State v. Kole , 92 Ohio St.3d 303 , 2001-Ohio-191 , *Page 7 quoting Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2 2008He argues this placed unreasonable constraints on his attorney, who could not seek "mitigation evidence" for purposes of the resentencing, where he faced both the potential of additional prison time and the inclusion of mandatory postrelease control. {¶ 19} To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show two components: (1) "`that counsel's performance was deficient' and (2) `that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.'" State v. Kole , 92 Ohio St.3d 303 , 2001-Ohio-191 , *Page 7 quoting Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2 | 2 | 2002–2008 |
Goldfuss v. Davidson
green
1 sentence2026In appeals of civil cases, plain error is not favored and is only applicable in the rare case in which the error “‘seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.’” In re S.M., 2025-Ohio-5144, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.), quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton, 2016-Ohio-5900, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.); In re T.R. at ¶ 25; Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997), syllabus. {¶ 50} With respect to the juvenile court’s finding related to parenting classes, Kedzierski testified that after she made | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. McAlpin
green
1 sentence2025To establish plain error, Day must demonstrate that “an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the [proceeding].” (Emphasis deleted.) State v. McAlpin, 2022-Ohio-1567, ¶ 66 , quoting State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22. {¶ 13} Here, both Day and her trial counsel confirmed at the plea hearing that Day was “enter[ing] a plea of no-contest to the one count of the indictment”—not the State’s recitation of facts. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Bell
green
1 sentence2025Qualls, supra; Bell, supra. {¶25} Here, Howard requested a competency evaluation in a timely manner and his defense counsel stated on the day of the hearing that Howard was “deeply inhibited by mental health issues,” that those issues “seem to be extensive,” and that he was suffering from “confusion and detachment from reality.” Howard’s competency was at issue from the onset of the case, and he had one previous competency evaluation and several other requests for competency evaluations in the municipal court. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Qualls
green
1 sentence2025Qualls, supra; Bell, supra. {¶25} Here, Howard requested a competency evaluation in a timely manner and his defense counsel stated on the day of the hearing that Howard was “deeply inhibited by mental health issues,” that those issues “seem to be extensive,” and that he was suffering from “confusion and detachment from reality.” Howard’s competency was at issue from the onset of the case, and he had one previous competency evaluation and several other requests for competency evaluations in the municipal court. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Adoption of Y.E.F. (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2024Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court held that “[i]ndigent parents are entitled to counsel in adoption proceedings in probate court as a matter of equal protection of the law under the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution.” In re Adoption of Y.E.F., 2020-Ohio-6785 , syllabus. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ferensic v. Birkett
green
1 sentence2024Jackson cites Ferensic v. Birkett, 501 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2007), in support of his argument. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Musto v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2024Bd. of Revision, 2016-Ohio-8058, ¶ 23 . {¶ 38} Considering all the circumstances surrounding Father’s request, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s oral motion for a continuance on the day of the hearing. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re K.Y.
neutral
1 sentence2023Cuyahoga No. 109111, 2020-Ohio-4140, ¶ 11 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Broom
green
2 sentences2023State v. Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 277, 288 , 533 N.E.2d 682 (1988). {¶39} Pursuant to Juv.R. 23, continuances “shall be granted only when imperative to secure fair treatment for the parties.” Loc.R. 14.07 of the Portage County Court of 9 Case Nos. 2023-P-0046, 2023-P-0047 Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, further provides, “No case will be continued on the day of the hearing, except for good cause shown, which cause was not known to the attorney or party prior to the day of the hearing, notwithstanding all other counsel and/or parties agreement to same.” {¶40} Applying the factors from Unger to the 2023State v. Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 277, 288 , 533 N.E.2d 682 (1988). {¶39} Pursuant to Juv.R. 23, continuances “shall be granted only when imperative to secure fair treatment for the parties.” Loc.R. 14.07 of the Portage County Court of 9 Case Nos. 2023-P-0046, 2023-P-0047 Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, further provides, “No case will be continued on the day of the hearing, except for good cause shown, which cause was not known to the attorney or party prior to the day of the hearing, notwithstanding all other counsel and/or parties agreement to same.” {¶40} Applying the factors from Unger to the | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Artis v. District of Columbia green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Sheffey
green
2 sentences2021Loc.R. 2 of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch ("Loc.Juv.R.") provides that "[n]o case will be continued on the day of hearing except for good cause shown." Although the juvenile court did not articulate reasons in support of its decision to deny the continuance, it did Nos. 20AP-83 and 20AP-85 14 note in its decision that the motions for permanent custody in these cases were filed on January 4, 2019, nearly 11 months before the permanent custody hearing on December 2, 2019.6 {¶ 45} Citing In re Sheffey, 167 Ohio App.3d 141 , 2006-Ohio 2021Loc.R. 2 of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch ("Loc.Juv.R.") provides that "[n]o case will be continued on the day of hearing except for good cause shown." Although the juvenile court did not articulate reasons in support of its decision to deny the continuance, it did Nos. 20AP-83 and 20AP-85 14 note in its decision that the motions for permanent custody in these cases were filed on January 4, 2019, nearly 11 months before the permanent custody hearing on December 2, 2019.6 {¶ 45} Citing In re Sheffey, 167 Ohio App.3d 141 , 2006-Ohio | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Law Offices of Russell A. Kelm v. Selby green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Ferguson green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Barker v. Wingo green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In re J.J. neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Swedlow v. Riegler green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In Re Kutzli green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In re J.J. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In Re A.P., Unpublished Decision (5-30-2006) green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Trehar v. Brightway Ctr. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In re J.D. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Amend v. Morgan neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State Ex Rel. Moyer v. Sharonville F.D., Unpublished Decision (2-15-2005) neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In Re Oliver green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In Re Ruffalo green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Schiavoni v. Roy green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| RNG Properties, Ltd. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Dresher v. Burt green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| RLM Properties, Ltd. v. Roberts green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Shover green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Stark County Bar Ass'n v. Arrow neutral | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Disciplinary Counsel v. Stuard green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Blakely v. Washington green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State ex rel. Turbine Engine Components Textron, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State ex rel. Turbine Engine Components Textron, Inc. v. Industrial Commission neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.