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 2012–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Sheldon (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2024See State v. Harper, 2020-Ohio-2913 , ¶ 25, quoting Smith v. Sheldon, 2019-Ohio-1677, ¶ 8 (recognizing that “‘a common pleas court has subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases’”); Henderson at ¶ 36, citing Tari v. State, 117 Ohio St. 481, 490 (1927) (noting that “[i]n a criminal matter, the court acquires jurisdiction over a person by lawfully issued process, followed by the arrest and arraignment of the accused and his plea to the charge”). 2021See also State v. Hudson, 161 Ohio St.3d 166 , 2020-Ohio-3849 , 161 N.E.3d 608 ¶ 16 (concluding that because the defendant could have, but did not, raise a claimed sentencing error on direct appeal, the error was “now barred by the doctrine of res judicata”). {¶25} The court has further noted that “[p]ursuant to R.C. 2931.03, ‘a common pleas court has subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases.’” Harper at ¶ 25, quoting Smith v. Sheldon, 157 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2019-Ohio-1677 , 131 N.E.3d 1 , ¶ 8. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Hudson (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2026See also State v. Hudson, . . . 2020-Ohio-3849 , . . . ¶ 16 (concluding that because the defendant could have, but did not, raise a claimed sentencing error on direct appeal, the error was ‘now barred by the doctrine of res judicata’).” Hall at ¶ 24 {¶32} There is nothing to indicate the trial court lacked subject matter or personal jurisdiction over either the case or Ms. Kendrick. 2021See also State v. Hudson, 161 Ohio St.3d 166 , 2020-Ohio-3849 , 161 N.E.3d 608 ¶ 16 (concluding that because the defendant could have, but did not, raise a claimed sentencing error on direct appeal, the error was “now barred by the doctrine of res judicata”). {¶25} The court has further noted that “[p]ursuant to R.C. 2931.03, ‘a common pleas court has subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases.’” Harper at ¶ 25, quoting Smith v. Sheldon, 157 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2019-Ohio-1677 , 131 N.E.3d 1 , ¶ 8. | 3 | 4 |
Tari v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See State v. Harper, 2020-Ohio-2913 , ¶ 25, quoting Smith v. Sheldon, 2019-Ohio-1677, ¶ 8 (recognizing that “‘a common pleas court has subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases’”); Henderson at ¶ 36, citing Tari v. State, 117 Ohio St. 481, 490 (1927) (noting that “[i]n a criminal matter, the court acquires jurisdiction over a person by lawfully issued process, followed by the arrest and arraignment of the accused and his plea to the charge”). 2021See Harper at ¶ 25, quoting Smith v. Sheldon, 157 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2019-Ohio-1677 , 131 N.E.3d 1 , ¶ 8, (recognizing that “‘a common pleas court has subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases’”); Henderson at ¶ 36 citing Tari v. State, 117 Ohio St. 481, 490 , 159 N.E. 594 (1927) (noting that “[i]n a criminal matter, the court acquires jurisdiction over a person by lawfully issued process, followed by the arrest and arraignment of the accused and his plea to the charge”). | 3 | 4 |
State ex rel. Faison v. Mahoning County Board of Electionsgreen2 sentences2021Accord Harper at ¶ 41, citing State v. Were, 120 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2008-Ohio-5277 , ¶ 7, 896 N.E.2d 699 (concluding that, because the defendant could have, but did not, raise a claimed sentencing error on direct appeal, the error was “now barred by the doctrine of res judicata”); State v. Hudson, 161 Ohio St.3d 163 , 2020- Ohio-3849, ¶ 16. {¶25} Appellee concedes, therefore, appellant’s sentence was contrary to Hitchcock but contends appellant’s argument is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because he did not raise the error in a direct appeal. 2021Accord Harper at ¶ 41, citing State v. Were, 120 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2008-Ohio-5277 , ¶ 7, 896 N.E.2d 699 (concluding that, because the defendant could have, but did not, raise a claimed sentencing error on direct appeal, the error was “now barred by the doctrine of res judicata”); State v. Hudson, 161 Ohio St.3d 163 , 2020- Ohio-3849, ¶ 16. {¶25} Appellee concedes, therefore, appellant’s sentence was contrary to Hitchcock but contends appellant’s argument is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because he did not raise the error in a direct appeal. | 2 | 2 |
Manns v. Gansheimergreen2 sentences2012See generally Manns v. Gansheimer, 117 Ohio St.3d 251 , 2008-Ohio-851 , 883 N.E.2d 431, ¶ 6 (“sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and are not remediable * * * by extraordinary writ”); compare Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345 , 2008-Ohio-4479 , 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 10 (“allied-offense claims are nonjurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas corpus”). 2012See generally Manns v. Gansheimer, 117 Ohio St.3d 251 , 2008-Ohio-851 , 883 N.E.2d 431, ¶ 6 (“sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and are not remediable * * * by extraordinary writ”); compare Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345 , 2008-Ohio-4479 , 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 10 (“allied-offense claims are nonjurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas corpus”). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Voorhiesgreen2 sentences2012See generally Manns v. Gansheimer, 117 Ohio St.3d 251 , 2008-Ohio-851 , 883 N.E.2d 431, ¶ 6 (“sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and are not remediable * * * by extraordinary writ”); compare Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345 , 2008-Ohio-4479 , 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 10 (“allied-offense claims are nonjurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas corpus”). 2012See generally Manns v. Gansheimer, 117 Ohio St.3d 251 , 2008-Ohio-851 , 883 N.E.2d 431, ¶ 6 (“sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and are not remediable * * * by extraordinary writ”); compare Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345 , 2008-Ohio-4479 , 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 10 (“allied-offense claims are nonjurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas corpus”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Harper (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2024See State v. Harper, 2020-Ohio-2913 , ¶ 25, quoting Smith v. Sheldon, 2019-Ohio-1677, ¶ 8 (recognizing that “‘a common pleas court has subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases’”); Henderson at ¶ 36, citing Tari v. State, 117 Ohio St. 481, 490 (1927) (noting that “[i]n a criminal matter, the court acquires jurisdiction over a person by lawfully issued process, followed by the arrest and arraignment of the accused and his plea to the charge”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Perrygreen1 sentence2021Thus, “if a judgment is voidable, the doctrine of res judicata bars a party from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except a direct appeal, claims that could have been raised in the trial court.” Id. at ¶ 19, citing State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 178-179 (1967) (concluding that because the defendant could have, but did not, raise a claimed sentencing error on direct appeal, the error was now barred by the doctrine of res judicata). {¶9} Here, Mr. Dyson does not challenge the trial court’s subject matter or personal jurisdiction, and we conclude the trial court possessed subject-matt | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.