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.
10 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
C.M.R. v. B.T.B.S.green1 sentence2026Compare C.M.R. v. B.T.B.S., 2023-Ohio-1973, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.) (“Where the granting of a continuance is necessary to allow a party a reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel or to otherwise prepare his or her case, the denial of a request for a continuance may violate a party’s right to due process.”). | 1 | 1 |
R.H. v. J.H.green1 sentence2023R.H. v. J.H., 2020-Ohio-3402, ¶ 9-14 (trial court abused its discretion in denying respondent’s request for a continuance of the full hearing of a domestic violence civil protection order so that he could obtain counsel where, “[r]ather than engaging in any consideration of the particular circumstances and factors surrounding the request as set forth in Unger,” the magistrate denied the request based solely on a perceived need for expediency in the proceedings); cf. Slusser v. Klosterman, 3d Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Rieger v. Riegergreen2 sentences2011See Rieger v. Rieger, 165 Ohio App.3d 454 , 2006-Ohio-482 , 847 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 9 . 2011See Rieger v. Rieger, 165 Ohio App.3d 454 , 2006-Ohio-482 , 847 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 9 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Finleygreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., State v. Finley, 146 Ohio App.3d 548 , 2001-Ohio-4347 (state did not show that civil protection order was issued in compliance with statute); State v. Franklin (June 22, 2001), Hamilton App. No. C-000544 (state failed to prove an essential element of the case because it failed to show compliance with statute the civil protection order was issued under). {¶ 21} R.C. 2903.214 (D)(2)(a) provides that "the court shall schedule a full hearing for a date that is within ten court days after the ex parte hearing. * * *. [T]he court may grant a continuance of the full hearing to a reasonable | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2026Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Taylor (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2024R.C. 3113.31(D)(2)(a)(i) through (iv). {¶ 7} While questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law that we review de novo, see, e.g., State v. Taylor, 163 Ohio St.3d 508 , 2020-Ohio-6786, ¶ 15 , citing State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 , 2007-Ohio-4163 , ¶ 8, a trial court’s determination whether to grant or deny a motion to continue is reviewed under an abuse of discretion analysis. 2024R.C. 3113.31(D)(2)(a)(i) through (iv). {¶ 7} While questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law that we review de novo, see, e.g., State v. Taylor, 163 Ohio St.3d 508 , 2020-Ohio-6786, ¶ 15 , citing State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 , 2007-Ohio-4163 , ¶ 8, a trial court’s determination whether to grant or deny a motion to continue is reviewed under an abuse of discretion analysis. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Consilio
green
1 sentence2024R.C. 3113.31(D)(2)(a)(i) through (iv). {¶ 7} While questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law that we review de novo, see, e.g., State v. Taylor, 163 Ohio St.3d 508 , 2020-Ohio-6786, ¶ 15 , citing State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 , 2007-Ohio-4163 , ¶ 8, a trial court’s determination whether to grant or deny a motion to continue is reviewed under an abuse of discretion analysis. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Deacon v. Landers
green
2 sentences2023Deacon v. Landers, 68 Ohio App.3d 26, 29-30 , 587 N.E.2d 395 (4th Dist.1990) (“[T]he opportunity to be heard and to defend oneself is required by R.C. 3113.31 before judgment of a protection order can be entered against a party to the action.”). {¶ 14} Under the following circumstances, a trial court “may” grant a continuance of the full hearing required under R.C. 3113.31: (1) the respondent has not been served with notice prior to the date of hearing; (2) the parties consent to a continuance; (3) the continuance is needed to allow a party to obtain counsel; or (4) the continuance is needed 7 2023Deacon v. Landers, 68 Ohio App.3d 26, 29-30 , 587 N.E.2d 395 (4th Dist.1990) (“[T]he opportunity to be heard and to defend oneself is required by R.C. 3113.31 before judgment of a protection order can be entered against a party to the action.”). {¶ 14} Under the following circumstances, a trial court “may” grant a continuance of the full hearing required under R.C. 3113.31: (1) the respondent has not been served with notice prior to the date of hearing; (2) the parties consent to a continuance; (3) the continuance is needed to allow a party to obtain counsel; or (4) the continuance is needed 7 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Tupps v. Jansen
green
2 sentences2016The full hearing must be held on the scheduled date unless the court grants a continuance of the full hearing “to a reasonable time determined by the court.” Id. 2016A continuance may be granted under the following circumstances: *** (ii) The parties consent to the continuance. (iii) The continuance is needed to allow a party to obtain counsel. (iv) The continuance is needed for other good cause -12- Case No. 17-15-19 Id. {¶29} First, Mary Pat argues that the trial court erred in continuing the full hearing to May 5, 2015 because a one-month continuance is not reasonable within the meaning of the statute. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hartt v. Munobe
green
2 sentences2011Hartt v. Munobe (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 3, 9 , 615 N.E.2d 617 . 2011Hartt v. Munobe (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 3, 9 , 615 N.E.2d 617 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Beachler v. Beachler, Unpublished Decision (3-19-2007)
green
1 sentence2007Although the trial court continued the initial hearing date from July 27, 2006 to August 2, 2006, it did not continue the August 2, 2006 hearing for lack of service to a reasonable time determined by the court. {¶ 10} "In order to render a valid judgment, a court must have jurisdiction over the defendant in the action." Beachler v. Beachler , Preble App. No. CA2006-03-007, 2007-Ohio-1220 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Blaine, Unpublished Decision (3-12-2004)
green
1 sentence2006R.C. 2903.214 (D)(2)(a)(i) through (iv). {¶ 10} We have interpreted R.C. 2903.214 "to mean that the legislature intended that the full hearing occur within ten days of the ex parte hearing or as soon thereafter as is reasonable." State v. Blaine , Highland App. No. 03CA9, 2004-Ohio-1241 , ¶ 21, appeal not allowed, 103 Ohio St.3d 1404 , 2004-Ohio-3980 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.