9 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2021 2 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. Jonesgreen2 sentences2021Dhillon at ¶ 52, citing State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335 , 338, 744 N.E.2d 1163 (2001) (“The trial court was entitled to accept McCollum's assurances that he would be fair and impartial and that he would decide the case on the basis of the evidence”). 2021Dhillon at ¶ 52, citing State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335 , 338, 744 N.E.2d 1163 (2001) (“The trial court was entitled to accept McCollum's assurances that he would be fair and impartial and that he would decide the case on the basis of the evidence”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Adams (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2019See State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 , 2015-Ohio-3954 , 45 N.E.3d 127, ¶ 158 (rejecting the defendant’s argument that a for-cause challenge was racially motivated, reasoning that “Batson applies only to prospective jurors removed by peremptory challenge”). 2019See State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 , 2015-Ohio-3954 , 45 N.E.3d 127, ¶ 158 (rejecting the defendant’s argument that a for-cause challenge was racially motivated, reasoning that “Batson applies only to prospective jurors removed by peremptory challenge”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2012State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 105 (1997). 2012Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d at 105 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pearson v. Gardner Cartage Co.
green
2 sentences2021Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0001, 2013-Ohio-4962, ¶ 17 . 5 the moving party must show that an accurate response from the juror would have provided a valid basis for a for-cause challenge.” Id. citing Pearson v. Gardner Cartage Co., 148 Ohio St. 425 (1947), paragraph two of the syllabus. 2013(Pearson v. Gardner Cartage Co., Inc. (1947), 148 Ohio St. 425 , 36 O.O. 77 , 76 N.E.2d 67 , paragraph two of the syllabus, and McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood (1984), 464 U.S. 548 , 104 S.Ct. 845 , 78 L.Ed.2d 663 , followed.) Id. at paragraph one of syllabus. {¶11} In the instant case, Juror No. 1 did not merely fail to disclose the fact that he was sued in the past, he affirmatively made a misrepresentation by boasting that “I’m proud to say in 33 years of practice I’ve never been sued for malpractice.” Therefore, this is not a case where the juror merely forgot to disclose a mater | 2 | 2013–2021 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2015Batson challenges (Proposition of law XVII) {¶ 157} Adams alleges that the state sought to exclude three prospective jurors for racially discriminatory reasons, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). {¶ 158} First, Adams asserts that the state’s for-cause challenge to prospective juror No. 301, an African-American woman who remained in the jury pool when the trial court declined to excuse her, was racially motivated. 2015Batson challenges (Proposition of law XVII) {¶ 157} Adams alleges that the state sought to exclude three prospective jurors for racially discriminatory reasons, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). {¶ 158} First, Adams asserts that the state’s for-cause challenge to prospective juror No. 301, an African-American woman who remained in the jury pool when the trial court declined to excuse her, was racially motivated. | 2 | 2012–2015 |
State v. Necessary
green
2 sentences2021Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0001, 2013-Ohio-4962, ¶ 17 . 5 the moving party must show that an accurate response from the juror would have provided a valid basis for a for-cause challenge.” Id. citing Pearson v. Gardner Cartage Co., 148 Ohio St. 425 (1947), paragraph two of the syllabus. 2021Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0001, 2013-Ohio-4962, ¶ 17 . 5 the moving party must show that an accurate response from the juror would have provided a valid basis for a for-cause challenge.” Id. citing Pearson v. Gardner Cartage Co., 148 Ohio St. 425 (1947), paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Coonrod
green
1 sentence2017Pickaway No. 11CA3, 2012-Ohio-6302 . {¶27} The Harrison court stated: Harrison did not explain how granting the State’s for-cause challenge to Juror No. 99 affected the outcome of the trial. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Esparza
green
2 sentences2016However, even when a for-cause challenge is not warranted, the prosecutor may “use perempto-ries to eliminate jurors based on opposition to the death penalty.” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 529-530 , 747 N.E.2d 765 (2001), citing State v. Esparza, 39 Ohio St.3d 8, 13-14 , 529 N.E.2d 192 (1988). 2016However, even when a for-cause challenge is not warranted, the prosecutor may “use perempto-ries to eliminate jurors based on opposition to the death penalty.” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 529-530 , 747 N.E.2d 765 (2001), citing State v. Esparza, 39 Ohio St.3d 8, 13-14 , 529 N.E.2d 192 (1988). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2016However, even when a for-cause challenge is not warranted, the prosecutor may “use perempto-ries to eliminate jurors based on opposition to the death penalty.” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 529-530 , 747 N.E.2d 765 (2001), citing State v. Esparza, 39 Ohio St.3d 8, 13-14 , 529 N.E.2d 192 (1988). 2016However, even when a for-cause challenge is not warranted, the prosecutor may “use perempto-ries to eliminate jurors based on opposition to the death penalty.” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 529-530 , 747 N.E.2d 765 (2001), citing State v. Esparza, 39 Ohio St.3d 8, 13-14 , 529 N.E.2d 192 (1988). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood
green
2 sentences2013(Pearson v. Gardner Cartage Co., Inc. (1947), 148 Ohio St. 425 , 36 O.O. 77 , 76 N.E.2d 67 , paragraph two of the syllabus, and McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood (1984), 464 U.S. 548 , 104 S.Ct. 845 , 78 L.Ed.2d 663 , followed.) Id. at paragraph one of syllabus. {¶11} In the instant case, Juror No. 1 did not merely fail to disclose the fact that he was sued in the past, he affirmatively made a misrepresentation by boasting that “I’m proud to say in 33 years of practice I’ve never been sued for malpractice.” Therefore, this is not a case where the juror merely forgot to disclose a mater 2013In fact, his admission that he had done consulting work for both plaintiffs and defendants in past medical malpractice cases indicates he was familiar with the litigation process, and, therefore, understood the court’s question regarding his involvement in “any litigation whatsoever.” {¶12} According to Gundy, the moving party must show prejudice by showing that “an accurate response from the juror would have provided a valid basis for a for-cause challenge.” Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.