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 1 courts 1997–2025 3 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State v. Edwards, Unpublished Decision (5-11-2006)green2 sentences2009See State v. Edwards, Cuyahoga App. No. 85908, 2006-Ohio-2315 , 2006 WL 1280945 , citing State v. Carmon (Nov. 18, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 75377, 1999 WL 1044603 (holding that “the failure to file a Crim.R. 32.1 motion or otherwise challenge a guilty plea at the trial level constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal”). 2007See State v. Edwards , Cuyahoga App. No. 85908, 2006-Ohio-2315 , citing State v. Carmon , (Nov. 18, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 75377 (holding that "the failure to file a Crim.R. 32.1 motion or otherwise *Page 4 challenge a guilty plea at the trial level constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal."). | 2 | 2 |
In re L.C.C.green1 sentence2025In re L.C.C., 2018-Ohio-4617, ¶ 50 (10th Dist.), citing PHH Mtge. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Malek al-Malikigreen1 sentence2024Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00058 8 {¶16} Under the plain error standard of review, the Appellant bears the burden of showing but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605 , 2022-Ohio-1556 , 200 N.E.3d 1048 . {¶17} The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit summarized the plain error standard of review of a Bruen challenge as follows: But because we review this case for plain error, we must determine only whether the cha | 1 | 1 |
Goldfuss v. Davidsongreen1 sentence2022See Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 122 (1997); see also Burns v. Burns, 6th Dist. | 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. West
green
2 sentences2024Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00058 8 {¶16} Under the plain error standard of review, the Appellant bears the burden of showing but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605 , 2022-Ohio-1556 , 200 N.E.3d 1048 . {¶17} The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit summarized the plain error standard of review of a Bruen challenge as follows: But because we review this case for plain error, we must determine only whether the cha 2024Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00058 8 {¶16} Under the plain error standard of review, the Appellant bears the burden of showing but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605 , 2022-Ohio-1556 , 200 N.E.3d 1048 . {¶17} The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit summarized the plain error standard of review of a Bruen challenge as follows: But because we review this case for plain error, we must determine only whether the cha | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Alvis Copeland, Jr.
green
1 sentence2009Id. {¶ 12} Courts have also rejected claims of error raised in this connection when they are premised upon isolated incidents, when the defendant is the only person who witnesses the alleged misconduct, or when the claim is not raised until the trial is over. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Braddy v. United States
green
1 sentence2002State v. Slagle (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 597 , 605 , certiorari denied (1993), 510 U.S. 833 , 114 S.Ct. 106 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Nichols v. United States
green
1 sentence2002State v. Slagle (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 597 , 605 , certiorari denied (1993), 510 U.S. 833 , 114 S.Ct. 106 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Slagle
green
1 sentence2002State v. Slagle (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 597 , 605 , certiorari denied (1993), 510 U.S. 833 , 114 S.Ct. 106 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Miley
green
2 sentences2002The court ultimately held that the presence of the alternates was not an error the appellate court was authorized to correct under Crim.R. 52. {¶ 25} Unlike Olano , the court in State v. Miley (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 786 , 603 N.E.2d 1070 , considered not merely the observation by an alternate of the jury deliberations, but the substitution of the alternate for a juror after deliberations had begun. 2002The court ultimately held that the presence of the alternates was not an error the appellate court was authorized to correct under Crim.R. 52. {¶ 25} Unlike Olano , the court in State v. Miley (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 786 , 603 N.E.2d 1070 , considered not merely the observation by an alternate of the jury deliberations, but the substitution of the alternate for a juror after deliberations had begun. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
United States v. Olano
green
1 sentence1997The court stated, however, that “[i]t is a separate question whether such a deviation amounts to ‘error’ when the defendant consents to the alternates’ presence.” Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.