71 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 16 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State v. Kittle, Unpublished Decision (6-22-2005)green2 sentences2026Crim.R. 7(D) provides, in relevant part: The court may at any time before, during, or after a trial amend the indictment, information, complaint, or bill of particulars, in respect to any defect, imperfection, or omission in form or substance, or of any variance with the evidence, provided no change is made in the name or identity of the crime charged. * * * {¶52} “Under Crim.R. 7(D), a change in the name or identity of the charged crime occurs when an indictment is amended so that the offense alleged in the original indictment and the offense alleged in the amended indictment contain differen 2026Crim.R. 7(D) provides, in relevant part: The court may at any time before, during, or after a trial amend the indictment, information, complaint, or bill of particulars, in respect to any defect, imperfection, or omission in form or substance, or of any variance with the evidence, provided no change is made in the name or identity of the crime charged. * * * {¶52} “Under Crim.R. 7(D), a change in the name or identity of the charged crime occurs when an indictment is amended so that the offense alleged in the original indictment and the offense alleged in the amended indictment contain differen | 2 | 6 |
Brown v. Brown, Ca2008-08-021 (5-11-2009)green2 sentences2017Madison No. CA2008-08-021, 2009-Ohio-2204, ¶ 11 (“A trial court commits reversible error if it makes a division of marital property and was not presented with any evidence of valuation of marital property and where it failed to assign a value in its decree.”). {¶ 27} The rationale for the waiver approach was articulated in Walls, where the court said, The dissenting judge in this case takes the position that if the evidence is so obscure, the court should require the parties to submit further evidence on the issue. 2011But, see, Brown v. Brown, Madison App. No. CA2008-08-021, 2009-Ohio-2204, at ¶11 (“A trial court commits reversible error if it makes a division of marital property and was not presented with any evidence of valuation of marital property and where it failed to assign a value in its decree.”); Basham v. Basham, Scioto App. No. 06CA3085, 2007-Ohio-3941, at ¶11 (“[W]hen parties fail to adduce evidence or stipulate to the value of important and substantial marital assets, trial courts should require the parties to do so.”) (Abele, J., with one judge concurring in judgment only and one judge concur | 2 | 2 |
In Re Browngreen2 sentences2016See In re Brown, 98 Ohio App.3d 337, 343 (3d Dist.1994). 2015See In re Brown, 98 Ohio App.3d 337, 343 (3d -16- Case No. 7-15-06 Dist.1994). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (9-9-2004)green2 sentences2007The trial court also reinstated the convictions with respect to Counts 7 and 8 and ordered its original sentence to remain the same. {¶ 7} From the trial court's judgment that amended the indictment and reinstated rape convictions with respect to Counts 7 and 8, plaintiff now appeals and assigns a single error for our consideration: The trial court erred in amending the indictment following trial to change the factual allegations against Appellant in violation of due process protections under the state and federal Constitutions and Article I , Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution. {¶ 8} "A tria 2007The trial court also reinstated the convictions with respect to Counts 7 and 8 and ordered its original sentence to remain the same. {¶ 7} From the trial court's judgment that amended the indictment and reinstated rape convictions with respect to Counts 7 and 8, plaintiff now appeals and assigns a single error for our consideration: The trial court erred in amending the indictment following trial to change the factual allegations against Appellant in violation of due process protections under the state and federal Constitutions and Article I , Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution. {¶ 8} "A tria | 1 | 11 |
State v. Headleygreen2 sentences2009No. 04CA41, 2005-Ohio-3198, at ¶ 12 ; State v. Headley (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 475, 478-479 , 453 N.E.2d 716 . {¶9} “Where the ‘name’ of the crime remains the same, even after amendment, there is no violation of Crim.R. 7(D) regarding that prohibition.” State v. Craft, 181 Ohio App.3d 150 , 2009-Ohio-675 , 908 N.E.2d 476, at ¶ 23 , citing State v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2008-Ohio-4537 , 903 N.E.2d 609, at ¶ 5 ; State v. Corrill (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 550, 552 , 729 N.E.2d 403 ; State v. Dukes, 3d Dist. 2009A trial court commits reversible error when it permits an amendment that changes the name or identity of the crime charged. [ State v. Kittle , 4th Dist. *Page 10 No. 04CA41, 2005-Ohio-3198 , at ¶ 12 ; State v. Headley , 6 Ohio St. 3d at 478-479 .]" State v. Fairbanks , 172 Ohio App.3d 766 , 2007-Ohio-4117 , at ¶ 15-17 . | 1 | 3 |
Shell v. Higginsgreen2 sentences2025Yasmin directs us to Shell v. Higgins, 2017-Ohio-8186, ¶ 12 (2nd Dist.), which cited this court’s decision in Hightower v. Hightower, 2002-Ohio-5488 , ¶ 16 (10th Dist.), holding that a trial court commits reversible error when it proceeds without ensuring that proper service has been made. {¶ 13} Civ.R. 75(L) states: In all cases where there is no counsel of record for the adverse party, the court shall give the adverse party notice of the trial upon the merits. 2021Darke No. 2017-CA-5, 2017-Ohio-8186, ¶ 12 , citing Hightower v. Hightower, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2025State v. Wilson, 2019-Ohio-2754, ¶13 (4th Dist.); State v. Smith, 2004-Ohio-4786, at ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). 2022Id., citing State v. Kittle, 4th Dist. | 1 | 2 |
Gower v. Conradgreen2 sentences2018We recognize a three-part test to determine when the trial court commits reversible error in failing to give a requested instruction: "(1) the proposed instruction must be a correct statement of the law; (2) the proposed instruction must not be redundant of other instructions given; and (3) the failure to give the proposed instruction impaired the theory of the case of the party requesting it." Gower v. Conrad , 146 Ohio App.3d 200 , 203, 765 N.E.2d 905 (10th Dist.2001) ; State v. Dodson , 10th Dist. 2018We recognize a three-part test to determine when the trial court commits reversible error in failing to give a requested instruction: "(1) the proposed instruction must be a correct statement of the law; (2) the proposed instruction must not be redundant of other instructions given; and (3) the failure to give the proposed instruction impaired the theory of the case of the party requesting it." Gower v. Conrad , 146 Ohio App.3d 200 , 203, 765 N.E.2d 905 (10th Dist.2001) ; State v. Dodson , 10th Dist. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Fairbanksgreen2 sentences2009A trial court commits reversible error when it permits an amendment that changes the name or identity of the crime charged. [ State v. Kittle , 4th Dist. *Page 10 No. 04CA41, 2005-Ohio-3198 , at ¶ 12 ; State v. Headley , 6 Ohio St. 3d at 478-479 .]" State v. Fairbanks , 172 Ohio App.3d 766 , 2007-Ohio-4117 , at ¶ 15-17 . 2009A trial court commits reversible error when it permits an amendment that changes the name or identity of the crime charged. [ State v. Kittle , 4th Dist. *Page 10 No. 04CA41, 2005-Ohio-3198 , at ¶ 12 ; State v. Headley , 6 Ohio St. 3d at 478-479 .]" State v. Fairbanks , 172 Ohio App.3d 766 , 2007-Ohio-4117 , at ¶ 15-17 . | 1 | 2 |
Hickman v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences1993As to procedure, we note that the granting of summary judgment is governed by Civ.R. 56(C), which provides in pertinent part as follows: “(C) * * * A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from such evidence or stipulation and only therefrom, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, such party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in his favor.” Thus, pursuant to this rule, a trial court commits reversible error where it grants sum 1993As to procedure, we note that the granting of summary judgment is governed by Civ.R. 56(C), which provides in pertinent part as follows: “(C) * * * A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from such evidence or stipulation and only therefrom, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, such party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in his favor.” Thus, pursuant to this rule, a trial court commits reversible error where it grants sum | 1 | 2 |
State v. Abdullah, 07ap-427 (12-27-2007)green1 sentence2026Crim.R. 7(D) provides, in relevant part: The court may at any time before, during, or after a trial amend the indictment, information, complaint, or bill of particulars, in respect to any defect, imperfection, or omission in form or substance, or of any variance with the evidence, provided no change is made in the name or identity of the crime charged. * * * {¶52} “Under Crim.R. 7(D), a change in the name or identity of the charged crime occurs when an indictment is amended so that the offense alleged in the original indictment and the offense alleged in the amended indictment contain differen | 1 | 1 |
Yin v. Amino Products Co.green1 sentence2026Co., 141 Ohio St. 21, 29 (1943)). {¶30} A court commits reversible error if a judgment is not liquidated and it enters default judgment without holding a hearing. | 1 | 1 |
KeyBank, N.A. v. Davidgreen1 sentence2026KeyBank, N.A. v. David, 2024-Ohio-5333, ¶ 41 (7th Dist.); Liese v. Kent State Univ., 2004-Ohio-5322, ¶ 43 (11th Dist.); Lee v. Bath Manor Ltd. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cookgreen1 sentence2026Crim.R. 7(D) provides, in relevant part: The court may at any time before, during, or after a trial amend the indictment, information, complaint, or bill of particulars, in respect to any defect, imperfection, or omission in form or substance, or of any variance with the evidence, provided no change is made in the name or identity of the crime charged. * * * {¶52} “Under Crim.R. 7(D), a change in the name or identity of the charged crime occurs when an indictment is amended so that the offense alleged in the original indictment and the offense alleged in the amended indictment contain differen | 1 | 1 |
Hull v. Clem D's Auto Salesgreen1 sentence2026Hull v. Clem D's Auto Sales, 2012-Ohio-629, ¶ 7 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Liese v. Kent State Univ., Unpublished Decision (9-30-2004)green1 sentence2026KeyBank, N.A. v. David, 2024-Ohio-5333, ¶ 41 (7th Dist.); Liese v. Kent State Univ., 2004-Ohio-5322, ¶ 43 (11th Dist.); Lee v. Bath Manor Ltd. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopezgreen1 sentence2024Wells points to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 147 (2006), in support of the proposition that a trial court commits reversible error when it denies a defendant capable of retaining counsel from selecting an attorney of his choosing. {¶14} The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” The Supreme Court has recognized that “an element of this right is the right of a defendant who does not r | 1 | 1 |
| Mozingo v. 2007 Gaslight Ohio, L.L.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Basham v. Basham, 06ca3085 (5-14-2007)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dixon, Unpublished Decision (8-13-2004)green | 1 | 1 |
| Phillips v. Phillips, Unpublished Decision (1-14-2005)green | 1 | 1 |
| Goode v. Fraleygreen | 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. Joseph
green
2 sentences2018In State v. Joseph , 125 Ohio St.3d 76 , 2010-Ohio-954 , 926 N.E.2d 278 , ¶ 22-23 the Ohio Supreme Court held that a trial court commits reversible error when it fails to afford a defendant an opportunity to seek a waiver of court costs at his or her sentencing hearing. 2018In State v. Joseph , 125 Ohio St.3d 76 , 2010-Ohio-954 , 926 N.E.2d 278 , ¶ 22-23 the Ohio Supreme Court held that a trial court commits reversible error when it fails to afford a defendant an opportunity to seek a waiver of court costs at his or her sentencing hearing. | 3 | 2011–2018 |
State v. Jenks
red
2 sentences2006Weight and Sufficiency {¶ 28} In support of his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support his convictions, and that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶ 29} The Supreme Court of Ohio outlined the role of an appellate court presented with a sufficiency of evidence argument in State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 , paragraph two of the syllabus: An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence 2006Weight and Sufficiency {¶ 28} In support of his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support his convictions, and that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶ 29} The Supreme Court of Ohio outlined the role of an appellate court presented with a sufficiency of evidence argument in State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 , paragraph two of the syllabus: An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence | 3 | 2002–2006 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2009(Parallel citations omitted and emphasis added by Twelfth Appellate District.) {¶ 30} "`Whether an amendment changes the name or identity of the crime charged is a matter of law.' State v. Cooper (June 25, 1998), Ross App. No. 97CA2326, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 2958 , citing State v. Jackson (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 479 , * * *. 2007The trial court also reinstated the convictions with respect to Counts 7 and 8 and ordered its original sentence to remain the same. {¶ 7} From the trial court's judgment that amended the indictment and reinstated rape convictions with respect to Counts 7 and 8, plaintiff now appeals and assigns a single error for our consideration: The trial court erred in amending the indictment following trial to change the factual allegations against Appellant in violation of due process protections under the state and federal Constitutions and Article I , Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution. {¶ 8} "A tria | 2 | 2007–2009 |
State v. Walker
green
2 sentences2008Id.; State v. Walker (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 768 , 573 N.E.2d 1158 . {¶ 16} "In this case, the trial court promised appellant that it would not sentence him to prison. 2008Id.; State v. Walker (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 768 , 573 N.E.2d 1158 . {¶ 16} "In this case, the trial court promised appellant that it would not sentence him to prison. | 2 | 2002–2008 |
State v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2025“A trial court commits reversible error when it permits an amendment that changes the name or identity of the offense charged, regardless of whether the defendant suffered prejudice.” Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Stanley v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr.
green
1 sentence2024A trial court commits reversible error “where it is apparent from the record that the trial court failed to review [all evidence] before entering judgment.” Id. at syllabus. {¶ 23} The record in the present case affirmatively demonstrates the trial court failed to consider the testimony and report of Smith before determining the marital value of Eye Columbus. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Walker
green
1 sentence2021Cuyahoga No. 109142, 2021-Ohio-580 , this court recently held that a trial court commits reversible error when it fails to properly advise a violent offender of the presumption established under R.C. 2903.42(A)(1), the offender’s right to file a motion to rebut the presumption, of the procedure and criteria for rebutting the presumption, and of the effect of a rebuttal and post-rebuttal hearing procedures and possible outcome. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Peagler
green
1 sentence2021“Arguments not made by the defendant at the suppression hearing are, therefore, deemed to have been waived.” Id. {¶17} A trial court commits reversible error by granting a motion to suppress on a basis not raised by the defendant’s motion because the state is not provided with an opportunity to adequately prepare arguments and present evidence on an issue not raised by the defendant. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Burns
green
1 sentence2021Cuyahoga No. 95465, 2011-Ohio-4230, ¶ 39 , citing R.C. 2929.18(A)(1).1 “A trial court commits reversible error when it fails to impose the amount of restitution in open court during the sentencing hearing.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Leonhart, 4th Dist. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Leonhart
green
1 sentence2021Washington No. 13CA38, 2014-Ohio-5601 , ¶ 1 R.C. 2929.18 is the analogous provision for imposition of financial sanctions in felony sentencing. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Stratacache, Inc. v. Wenzel
green
1 sentence2020She adds that because this court has “held that a trial court commits reversible error by ordering the disclosure of a claims [sic] file without conducting an in-camera [sic] review,” we should also hold that “a trial court commits reversible error by failing to conduct an in- camera [sic] review of a claims [sic] file before [determining that the file is] not discoverable.” Id., citing Unklesbay v. Fenwick, 167 Ohio App.3d 408 , 2006-Ohio-2630 , 855 N.E.2d 516 (2d Dist.). {¶ 12} Perrin’s fundamental premise is that Cincinnati Insurance’s medical payments adjuster acted improperly by sharing i | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Pepka
green
1 sentence2020Id., citing State v. Kittle, 4th Dist. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Unklesbay v. Fenwick
green
2 sentences2020She adds that because this court has “held that a trial court commits reversible error by ordering the disclosure of a claims [sic] file without conducting an in-camera [sic] review,” we should also hold that “a trial court commits reversible error by failing to conduct an in- camera [sic] review of a claims [sic] file before [determining that the file is] not discoverable.” Id., citing Unklesbay v. Fenwick, 167 Ohio App.3d 408 , 2006-Ohio-2630 , 855 N.E.2d 516 (2d Dist.). {¶ 12} Perrin’s fundamental premise is that Cincinnati Insurance’s medical payments adjuster acted improperly by sharing i 2020She adds that because this court has “held that a trial court commits reversible error by ordering the disclosure of a claims [sic] file without conducting an in-camera [sic] review,” we should also hold that “a trial court commits reversible error by failing to conduct an in- camera [sic] review of a claims [sic] file before [determining that the file is] not discoverable.” Id., citing Unklesbay v. Fenwick, 167 Ohio App.3d 408 , 2006-Ohio-2630 , 855 N.E.2d 516 (2d Dist.). {¶ 12} Perrin’s fundamental premise is that Cincinnati Insurance’s medical payments adjuster acted improperly by sharing i | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Beasley green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Godinez v. Moran green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. McGrath, 91261 (3-26-2009) green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Yarbrough green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Associated Estates Corp. v. Bartell green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Yarbrough green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. El-Jones green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Welch green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Waters, Unpublished Decision (9-29-2005) green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Liming v. Liming, Unpublished Decision (5-2-2005) green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Elias, Unpublished Decision (10-11-2007) neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Davis green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Craft green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Corrill green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Johnson, Unpublished Decision (3-17-2004) green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Baker green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Martin, Unpublished Decision (6-1-2006) green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Foster green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Beach green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Thompkins green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Thompkins red | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Group green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| In Re Foreclosure of Liens for Delinquent Taxes green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School District Board of Education green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Edmonson green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.