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 1994–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Purcell v. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2022Purcell, though, simply stands for the common-sense principle that judges—novices in election administration—should not meddle in elections at the last minute, id. at 5-6 , because when they do, they are likely to do more harm than good. 2022Purcell, though, simply stands for the common-sense principle that judges—novices in election administration—should not meddle in elections at the last minute, id. at 5-6 , because when they do, they are likely to do more harm than good. | 1 | 2 |
Joel Crookston v. Ruth Johnsongreen2 sentences2024Though Purcell is a federal case and therefore not binding on this court, we find its logic persuasive. {¶ 29} While built primarily on principles of federalism, Purcell also stands “for the common-sense principle that judges—novices in election administration— should not meddle in elections at the last minute . . . because when they do, they are likely to do more harm than good.” DeMora at ¶ 130 (DeWine, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also Crookston v. Johnson, 841 F.3d 396, 398 (6th Cir. 2016) (“Call it what you will—laches, the Purcell principle, or common sense—the ide 2024Though Purcell is a federal case and therefore not binding on this court, we find its logic persuasive. {¶ 29} While primarily built on principles of federalism, Purcell also stands “for the common-sense principle that judges—novices in election administration— should not meddle in elections at the last minute . . . because when they do, they are likely to do more harm than good.” DeMora at ¶ 130 (DeWine, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also Crookston v. Johnson, 841 F.3d 396, 398 (6th Cir. 2016) (“Call it what you will—laches, the Purcell principle, or common sense—the ide | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Cortez
green
2 sentences2023State v. -20- Case Nos. 5-22-15 and 5-22-16 Willoughby, 81 Ohio App.3d 562, 568-569 , 611 N.E.2d 937 (1992), citing United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). {¶44} In this case, Patrolmen Warnimont and Hackworth testified that, based on their training and experience, they recognized the substances in the two bags behind the refrigerator to be controlled substances. 2023State v. -20- Case Nos. 5-22-15 and 5-22-16 Willoughby, 81 Ohio App.3d 562, 568-569 , 611 N.E.2d 937 (1992), citing United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). {¶44} In this case, Patrolmen Warnimont and Hackworth testified that, based on their training and experience, they recognized the substances in the two bags behind the refrigerator to be controlled substances. | 2 | 2006–2023 |
State v. Willoughby
green
2 sentences2023State v. -20- Case Nos. 5-22-15 and 5-22-16 Willoughby, 81 Ohio App.3d 562, 568-569 , 611 N.E.2d 937 (1992), citing United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). {¶44} In this case, Patrolmen Warnimont and Hackworth testified that, based on their training and experience, they recognized the substances in the two bags behind the refrigerator to be controlled substances. 2023State v. -20- Case Nos. 5-22-15 and 5-22-16 Willoughby, 81 Ohio App.3d 562, 568-569 , 611 N.E.2d 937 (1992), citing United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). {¶44} In this case, Patrolmen Warnimont and Hackworth testified that, based on their training and experience, they recognized the substances in the two bags behind the refrigerator to be controlled substances. | 2 | 2006–2023 |
State v. Burns
green
1 sentence2026I further strongly dissent from the majority’s decision to overturn Burns, 2022-Ohio-4606 , which established a common-sense rule of law that comports with the language of the bindover statute and was agreed upon by all the justices on this court at that time. {¶ 67} Instead, I would dismiss this appeal as having been improvidently accepted because the Eighth District Court of Appeals applied Smith and Burns as decided by this court and the State does not raise any new legal issues for this court to decide on this particular issue. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Illinois v. Gates
green
2 sentences2020Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). 2020Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Texas v. Brown
green
2 sentences2020Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). 2020Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Adams Robinson Enterprises v. Envirologix Corp.
green
2 sentences2011Adams Robinson, 111 Ohio App.3d at 430 , 676 N.E.2d 560 . 2011Adams Robinson, 111 Ohio App.3d at 430 , 676 N.E.2d 560 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Adams
green
1 sentence2008Id. at 111 . {¶ 9} Some courts have described Baker' s holding as a "disjunctive test" — requiring either that the facts of the subsequently indicted offenses were different or that the state did not know of the additional facts giving rise to the subsequent charges when the first indictment was filed — in order to conclude that the speedy trial time triggered by the first indictment did not apply to a subsequent indictment. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
National Amusements, Inc. v. City of Springdale
green
2 sentences1994National Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 60 [ 558 N.E.2d 1178 .] * * * ” (Emphasis added.) Though Christ Hosp. involved successive administrative appeals instead of successive declaratory judgment actions, as is the case here, the Ohio Supreme Court dealt with facts similar to the instant action in Cincinnati ex rel. 1994National Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 60 [ 558 N.E.2d 1178 .] * * * ” (Emphasis added.) Though Christ Hosp. involved successive administrative appeals instead of successive declaratory judgment actions, as is the case here, the Ohio Supreme Court dealt with facts similar to the instant action in Cincinnati ex rel. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.