impact doctrine in Ohio

2024Id. at ¶ 25. {¶27} In State v. Lute, 2016-Ohio-7978 , the Fourth District determined that the denial of a defendant’s request to testify, which occurred prior to the State beginning closing arguments, was error.

2020Id., citing State v. Gabel, 11th Dist.

2020Welfare, 28 Ohio St.3d 256 (1986), the Supreme Court examined a prior version of Ohio Adm.Code 5160-70-06(A)(4) and discussed the impact of the rule in a case involving alleged overpayments received by a No. 20AP-32 11 Medicaid service provider.

2020However, Jensen's guilty plea has an impact on our analysis as "a guilty plea renders irrelevant those constitutional violations not logically inconsistent with the valid establishment of factual guilt and which do not stand in the way of conviction if factual guilt is validly established.” State v. Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321 , 2004-Ohio-3167 , ¶ 78.

2020Ashland No. 14-COA-008, 2014-Ohio-5129, at ¶ 26 , we stated the following regarding the impact of those factors the trial court may consider during sentencing: * * * *.

2005Quoting Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 1 , 11 Ohio B. 1, 462 N.E.2d 410 , this court reiterated `the doctrine provides that the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case * * *.' The rule is necessary to `ensure consistency of results in a case * * *.' The doctrine therefore `functions to compel trial courts to follow the mandates of reviewing courts.' Consequently, `where at a rehearing following a remand a trial court is confronted with substantially the same facts and issues as were in

2005Quoting Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 1 , 11 Ohio B. 1, 462 N.E.2d 410 , this court reiterated `the doctrine provides that the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case * * *.' The rule is necessary to `ensure consistency of results in a case * * *.' The doctrine therefore `functions to compel trial courts to follow the mandates of reviewing courts.' Consequently, `where at a rehearing following a remand a trial court is confronted with substantially the same facts and issues as were in

2005Again, Judge Kenneth A. Rocco outlined the impact of the doctrine on vacated sentences and resentencing hearings in State v. Moore, Cuyahoga App. No. 83703, 2004-Ohio-6303 , when he stated the following: "The law of the case doctrine as applied to resentencing hearings earlier was discussed in State v. Gauntt (Dec. 29, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 66791, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 5951 .

1983Circus v. Turnage (1928), 38 Ga. App. 581 , 144 S.E. 680 (where the court found the impact rule to be satisfied where the defendant’s horse “evacuated his bowels” onto the plaintiff’s lap); see, also, Prosser, supra, at 331, Section 54.

1983Circus v. Turnage (1928), 38 Ga. App. 581 , 144 S.E. 680 (where the court found the impact rule to be satisfied where the defendant’s horse “evacuated his bowels” onto the plaintiff’s lap); see, also, Prosser, supra, at 331, Section 54.

1961(See, also, Bosley v. Andrews, supra.) Though it has been said (16 Notre Dame Lawyer, 373) that Ohio follows the impact rule, the cases generally do not reflect such a finding.