9 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2021 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State v. Adams, Unpublished Decision (7-28-2005)green2 sentences2021Cuyahoga No. 85267, 2005-Ohio-3837, ¶ 5 (concluding a challenge to the waiver of counsel was moot after defendant’s 30-day suspended sentence and term of probation for a petty offense had expired). {¶12} The first assigned error is without merit. {¶13} Appellant next argues the trial court erred when it allowed Brian McCauley, admittedly diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, to testify over appellant’s challenge to his competency. {¶14} Evidence Rule 601, the general rule of competency, provides in pertinent part as follows: (A) General Rule. 2021Cuyahoga No. 85267, 2005-Ohio-3837, ¶ 5 (concluding a challenge to the waiver of counsel was moot after defendant’s 30-day suspended sentence and term of probation for a petty offense had expired). {¶12} The first assigned error is without merit. {¶13} Appellant next argues the trial court erred when it allowed Brian McCauley, admittedly diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, to testify over appellant’s challenge to his competency. {¶14} Evidence Rule 601, the general rule of competency, provides in pertinent part as follows: (A) General Rule. | 1 | 1 |
Bowen v. Roygreen2 sentences1996See, generally, id. at 701-712 , 106 S.Ct. at 2153-2159 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 745-753 (Burger, C.J., joined by Powell and Rehnquist, JJ.). 1996See, generally, id. at 701-712 , 106 S.Ct. at 2153-2159 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 745-753 (Burger, C.J., joined by Powell and Rehnquist, JJ.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1983As was expressed in my dissenting opinion in State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 107, 114-115 [ 18 O.O.3d 348 ], when a facially sufficient constitutional claim is dependent upon factual allegations that could not be determined on the basis of the files and records included in a challenge because the claim is dependent upon evidence outside the record, a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(E), or a summary judgment proceeding pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(D), is necessary to dispose of the petition. 1983As was expressed in my dissenting opinion in State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 107, 114-115 [ 18 O.O.3d 348 ], when a facially sufficient constitutional claim is dependent upon factual allegations that could not be determined on the basis of the files and records included in a challenge because the claim is dependent upon evidence outside the record, a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(E), or a summary judgment proceeding pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(D), is necessary to dispose of the petition. | 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. Gwynne (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2020Thus, this challenge requires an analysis used in Marcum, infra, not the consecutive sentence review used in State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 , 2019-Ohio-4761 , 141 N.E.3d 169 , ¶ 15-17. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Hernandez v. New York
green
1 sentence2012The Court 14 concluded that the prosecutor offered a race-neutral basis for the peremptory strikes because he “explained that the specific responses and the demeanor of the two individuals during voir dire caused him to doubt their ability to defer to the official translation of Spanish-language testimony.” Id. at 360 . {¶37} In the case at hand, although the trial court mentioned Batson, it is clear from the record that it properly reviewed the challenge under the challenge-for-cause standard. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Cook
green
1 sentence2009Cook , supra. {¶ 63} In rejecting the challenge as being in violation of the Retroactivity Clause, the Court in Cook stated that many of the law's requirements were "directed towards officials rather than offenders"; the registration requirements were "` de minimis ' procedural requirements that are necessary to achieve the goals of R.C. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Carver v. the Township of Deerfield
green
1 sentence2008In re Dismissal of Osborn , 1992 WL 214527 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.); Carver v. Deerfield Township (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 64 . {¶ 19} Appellee Riggs contests the claim of privilege by arguing that upon the circumstances of this case, the attorney-client privilege relationship does not exist as to the non-lawyer witnesses. {¶ 20} In the unique posture of this case — a limited, focused interlocutory appeal of a denial of summary judgment — we conclude the question of privilege is properly left to the discretion of the trial court. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kovacs v. Kovacs
green
2 sentences2001“As the representative of the State, the [court’s] responsibility to ensure the best interests of the children supersedes that of the parents.” Id. at 301 , 633 A.2d at 431 . {¶ 16} Finally, appellant argues that because appellee could have mounted a challenge to the arbitration clause in a previous action, she is now barred from bringing this challenge under the doctrine of res judicata. 2001“As the representative of the State, the [court’s] responsibility to ensure the best interests of the children supersedes that of the parents.” Id. at 301 , 633 A.2d at 431 . {¶ 16} Finally, appellant argues that because appellee could have mounted a challenge to the arbitration clause in a previous action, she is now barred from bringing this challenge under the doctrine of res judicata. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Grava v. Parkman Township
green
2 sentences2001This argument, too, lacks merit. {¶ 17} Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.” Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379 , 653 N.E.2d 226 , syllabus. 2001This argument, too, lacks merit. {¶ 17} Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.” Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379 , 653 N.E.2d 226 , syllabus. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
City of Defiance v. Kretz
green
1 sentence1998In City of Defiance v. Kretz (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 1 , the Ohio Supreme Court held: a motion to suppress is a proper pre-trial procedure for challenging the breathalyzer test results when the defendant is charged with a violation of R.C. 4511.19 (A)(3). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.