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.
9 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2000Strickland, supra. Officer Bell's testimony concerning statements made by Christopher and the victim were hearsay. 2000Therefore, considering all of the actions of defense counsel, such actions were clearly deficient, but nonetheless just barely passed the prejudice test set forth in Strickland, supra, as there was no reasonable probability that but for defense counsel's deficient action, the proceeding would have been different. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Kercheval v. United States
green
2 sentences2018"Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution." State v. Engle , 74 Ohio St.3d 525 , 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996), citing Kercheval v. United States , 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927) ; Mabry v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 504 , 104 S.Ct. 2543 , 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) ; Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; State v. Kelley , 57 Ohio St.3d 127 , 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991) ; Crim.R. 11(C). 2018"Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution." State v. Engle , 74 Ohio St.3d 525 , 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996), citing Kercheval v. United States , 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927) ; Mabry v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 504 , 104 S.Ct. 2543 , 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) ; Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; State v. Kelley , 57 Ohio St.3d 127 , 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991) ; Crim.R. 11(C). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Boykin v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2018"Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution." State v. Engle , 74 Ohio St.3d 525 , 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996), citing Kercheval v. United States , 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927) ; Mabry v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 504 , 104 S.Ct. 2543 , 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) ; Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; State v. Kelley , 57 Ohio St.3d 127 , 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991) ; Crim.R. 11(C). 2018"Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution." State v. Engle , 74 Ohio St.3d 525 , 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996), citing Kercheval v. United States , 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927) ; Mabry v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 504 , 104 S.Ct. 2543 , 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) ; Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; State v. Kelley , 57 Ohio St.3d 127 , 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991) ; Crim.R. 11(C). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Kelley
green
2 sentences2018"Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution." State v. Engle , 74 Ohio St.3d 525 , 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996), citing Kercheval v. United States , 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927) ; Mabry v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 504 , 104 S.Ct. 2543 , 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) ; Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; State v. Kelley , 57 Ohio St.3d 127 , 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991) ; Crim.R. 11(C). 2018"Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution." State v. Engle , 74 Ohio St.3d 525 , 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996), citing Kercheval v. United States , 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927) ; Mabry v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 504 , 104 S.Ct. 2543 , 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) ; Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; State v. Kelley , 57 Ohio St.3d 127 , 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991) ; Crim.R. 11(C). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Mabry v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2018"Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution." State v. Engle , 74 Ohio St.3d 525 , 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996), citing Kercheval v. United States , 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927) ; Mabry v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 504 , 104 S.Ct. 2543 , 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) ; Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; State v. Kelley , 57 Ohio St.3d 127 , 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991) ; Crim.R. 11(C). 2018"Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution." State v. Engle , 74 Ohio St.3d 525 , 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996), citing Kercheval v. United States , 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927) ; Mabry v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 504 , 104 S.Ct. 2543 , 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) ; Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; State v. Kelley , 57 Ohio St.3d 127 , 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991) ; Crim.R. 11(C). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Engle
green
2 sentences2018"Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution." State v. Engle , 74 Ohio St.3d 525 , 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996), citing Kercheval v. United States , 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927) ; Mabry v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 504 , 104 S.Ct. 2543 , 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) ; Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; State v. Kelley , 57 Ohio St.3d 127 , 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991) ; Crim.R. 11(C). 2018"Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution." State v. Engle , 74 Ohio St.3d 525 , 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996), citing Kercheval v. United States , 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927) ; Mabry v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 504 , 104 S.Ct. 2543 , 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) ; Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; State v. Kelley , 57 Ohio St.3d 127 , 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991) ; Crim.R. 11(C). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc. , 15 Ohio St.3d 75 , 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). {¶ 29} The cause of action for failing to train or monitor employees wrongly assumes that the city owed the Minayas a duty of care. 2017Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc. , 15 Ohio St.3d 75 , 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). {¶ 29} The cause of action for failing to train or monitor employees wrongly assumes that the city owed the Minayas a duty of care. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Dipietro v. Lighthouse Ministries
green
2 sentences2008DiPietro v. Lighthouse Ministries , 159 Ohio App.3d 766 , 2005-Ohio-639 , ¶ 15 , citing Byrd v. Faber (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 56 , 58 ; Taylor v. Doctors Hospital (1985), 21 Ohio App.3d 154 , 156-157 . 2008DiPietro v. Lighthouse Ministries , 159 Ohio App.3d 766 , 2005-Ohio-639 , ¶ 15 , citing Byrd v. Faber (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 56 , 58 ; Taylor v. Doctors Hospital (1985), 21 Ohio App.3d 154 , 156-157 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Byrd v. Faber
green
1 sentence2008DiPietro v. Lighthouse Ministries , 159 Ohio App.3d 766 , 2005-Ohio-639 , ¶ 15 , citing Byrd v. Faber (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 56 , 58 ; Taylor v. Doctors Hospital (1985), 21 Ohio App.3d 154 , 156-157 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Taylor v. Doctors Hospital
green
1 sentence2008DiPietro v. Lighthouse Ministries , 159 Ohio App.3d 766 , 2005-Ohio-639 , ¶ 15 , citing Byrd v. Faber (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 56 , 58 ; Taylor v. Doctors Hospital (1985), 21 Ohio App.3d 154 , 156-157 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Roadhs
red
2 sentences2006In State v. Roadhs (1967), 71 Wash.2d 705 , 430 P.2d 586 , the Washington Supreme Court found that a fence used to enclose and protect property is an integral part of a closed compound and thus constituted a structure subject to breaking and entering. 2006In State v. Roadhs (1967), 71 Wash.2d 705 , 430 P.2d 586 , the Washington Supreme Court found that a fence used to enclose and protect property is an integral part of a closed compound and thus constituted a structure subject to breaking and entering. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Paugh & Farmer, Inc. v. Menorah Home for Jewish Aged
green
1 sentence2004On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs' actions were a violation of Civ.R. 26(E)(1)(b) and affirmed the trial court's decision. {¶ 25} The Ohio Supreme Court had previously dealt with a comparable situation in Paugh Farmer, Inc. v. Menorah Home for Jewish Aged (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 44 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Grubb
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Blevins
green
1 sentence2000Blevins, supra. Therefore, such statement was not hearsay and the actions of defense counsel did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness in failing to object to the admission of this statement. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
United States v. Perez
green
1 sentence1985The Supreme Court stated in United States v. Perez (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 580 , that the power of discharging a jury before verdict “* * * ought to be used with the greatest caution, under urgent circumstances, and for very plain and obvious causes, * * *.” The actions at bar obviously do not meet that standard. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
United States v. Dinitz
green
1 sentence1985The Supreme Court has also stated that “* * * [tjhe important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed * * United States v. Dinitz (1976), 424 U.S. 600, 609 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.