10 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2024 1 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. Browngreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., State v. Brown, 2023-Ohio-4452, ¶ 16 (6th Dist.), motion for delayed appeal granted, 2024-Ohio-1832 (where trial judge “in an attempt to just be congenial” talked to the jurors by himself, ultimately leading one juror to ask a question relating to questioning of witnesses). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Vincent Webbergreen1 sentence2020However, “a trial court is not required to conduct an inquiry with the defendant concerning the decision whether to testify in his defense.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. {¶37} While Robinson acknowledges that trial courts do not usually have a duty to conduct an inquiry with the defendant concerning the defendant’s decision whether to testify, he argues that an exception applies where there are “any statements or actions from the defendant indicating disagreement with counsel [about the decision to testify] or the desire to testify * * *.” United States v. Webber, 208 F.3d 545, 551 (6th Cir.2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sheppardgreen1 sentence2020Noriega claims the trial court erred in this case by failing to individually question the juror who expressed safety concerns to determine whether she could be fair and impartial. {¶ 25} "Fairness requires impartial, indifferent jurors." State v. Sheppard, 84 Ohio St.3d 230, 235 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mangrumgreen1 sentence1999See State v. Mangrum (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 156 , 158 . | 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. Bryant
green
2 sentences2014No. 12AP-703, 2013-Ohio-5105, ¶ 18 , quoting State v. Cleveland, 2d Dist. 2014Franklin No. 12AP-703, 2013-Ohio-5105, ¶ 18 , quoting State v. Cleveland, 2d Dist. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Bey
green
1 sentence2020However, “a trial court is not required to conduct an inquiry with the defendant concerning the decision whether to testify in his defense.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. {¶37} While Robinson acknowledges that trial courts do not usually have a duty to conduct an inquiry with the defendant concerning the defendant’s decision whether to testify, he argues that an exception applies where there are “any statements or actions from the defendant indicating disagreement with counsel [about the decision to testify] or the desire to testify * * *.” United States v. Webber, 208 F.3d 545, 551 (6th Cir.2000). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Corrao
green
1 sentence2011State v. Corrao, Cuyahoga App. No. 95167, 2011-Ohio-2517, at ¶ 10 ; State v. Miller, Portage App. No. 2009-P-0090, 2011-Ohio-1161 , at ¶ 56, 58. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Pisani v. Pisani
green
1 sentence2001The standard is different in the Eighth Appellate District, however, where, rather than requiring a trial court to hold a hearing when an arguable basis for an award of sanctions exists, we held in Pisani v. Pisani (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 83 , that the claimant must demonstrate actual merit before a trial court has the duty to conduct a hearing on a motion for sanctions: * * * a hearing is mandatory under R.C. 2323.51 only when sanctions are imposed and is not necessary when the court determines, upon consideration of the motion and in its discretion, that it lacks merit. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. King
green
1 sentence2000The State contends, however, that the inquiry may be brief and minimal, citing State v. Prater (1990), 71 Ohio App.3d 78 ; State v. King (1995), 104 Ohio App. 434 [ 104 Ohio App.3d 434 ]; and State v. Patterson (May 2, 1997), Montgomery App. 15699, unreported. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Prater
green
1 sentence2000The State contends, however, that the inquiry may be brief and minimal, citing State v. Prater (1990), 71 Ohio App.3d 78 ; State v. King (1995), 104 Ohio App. 434 [ 104 Ohio App.3d 434 ]; and State v. Patterson (May 2, 1997), Montgomery App. 15699, unreported. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1981Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St. 2d 141 [ 40 O.O.2d 141 ] the Supreme Court, in paragraph nine of the syllabus, held: “Mandamus will lie to permit a private individual to compel a public officer to perform an official act, where such officer is under a clear legal duty to do so, and where the relator has an interest, such as that of a taxpayer, or he is being denied a private right or benefit by reason of such public officer’s failure to take action to perform that act which he is under a clear legal duty to perform.” *456 Relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus raises the single issue of whether r 1981Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St. 2d 141 [ 40 O.O.2d 141 ] the Supreme Court, in paragraph nine of the syllabus, held: “Mandamus will lie to permit a private individual to compel a public officer to perform an official act, where such officer is under a clear legal duty to do so, and where the relator has an interest, such as that of a taxpayer, or he is being denied a private right or benefit by reason of such public officer’s failure to take action to perform that act which he is under a clear legal duty to perform.” *456 Relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus raises the single issue of whether r | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.