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 1997–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Michael Montgomerygreen1 sentence2019Adams at ¶ 100, citing United States v. Montgomery, 491 Fed.Appx. 683, 691 (6th Cir.2012). {¶ 16} On the record before us, the trial court did not err in denying Lynch’s motion to dismiss. | 1 | 1 |
Lynch v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2017Lynch v. Wilson, 114 Ohio St.3d 118, 119 , 2007-Ohio-3254 , 868 N.E.2d 982, 983, ¶¶ 5-6 (2007)(“Lynch's claim that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and sentence for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity is not cognizable in habeas corpus.”). “[H]abeas corpus is not available to remedy claims concerning * * * the sufficiency of the evidence.” State ex rel. 2017Lynch v. Wilson, 114 Ohio St.3d 118, 119 , 2007-Ohio-3254 , 868 N.E.2d 982, 983, ¶¶ 5-6 (2007)(“Lynch's claim that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and sentence for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity is not cognizable in habeas corpus.”). “[H]abeas corpus is not available to remedy claims concerning * * * the sufficiency of the evidence.” State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Watkins v. Collinsgreen1 sentence2013See Watkins [v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425 , 2006-Ohio-5082 ] at ¶ 53. | 1 | 1 |
Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuartgreen2 sentences2003Id.; State v. Lundgren (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 474, 479 , 653 N.E.2d 304 ; see, also, Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart (1976), 427 U.S. 539, 554-555 , 96 S.Ct. 2791 , 49 L.Ed.2d 683 . {¶ 36} The trial court found that there was significant “news coverage of * * * the disappearance of Mary Jennifer Love, a search for her over many days, the eventual arrest of the defendant, the recovery of the little girl’s body and her funeral.” However, review of the voir dire examination does not support Lynch’s claim of prejudicial pretrial publicity. 2003Id.; State v. Lundgren (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 474, 479 , 653 N.E.2d 304 ; see, also, Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart (1976), 427 U.S. 539, 554-555 , 96 S.Ct. 2791 , 49 L.Ed.2d 683 . {¶ 36} The trial court found that there was significant “news coverage of * * * the disappearance of Mary Jennifer Love, a search for her over many days, the eventual arrest of the defendant, the recovery of the little girl’s body and her funeral.” However, review of the voir dire examination does not support Lynch’s claim of prejudicial pretrial publicity. | 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 ex rel. Tarr v. Williams
neutral
2 sentences2017Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51 , 2006-Ohio- 6368, 857 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 4 . 2017Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51 , 2006-Ohio- 6368, 857 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 4 . | 2 | 2007–2017 |
State v. Mason (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2021According to Lynch, Hurst rendered his sentence improper because it was the result of procedural irregularities, contrary to law, and based on an error of law. {¶12} As Lynch’s motion was pending before the trial court, the Supreme Court of Ohio decided Mason., 153 Ohio St.3d 476 , 2018-Ohio-1462 , 108 N.E.3d 56 . 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Lynch renewed his motion for a new mitigation trial. 2021According to Lynch, Hurst rendered his sentence improper because it was the result of procedural irregularities, contrary to law, and based on an error of law. {¶12} As Lynch’s motion was pending before the trial court, the Supreme Court of Ohio decided Mason., 153 Ohio St.3d 476 , 2018-Ohio-1462 , 108 N.E.3d 56 . 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Lynch renewed his motion for a new mitigation trial. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Steger
green
1 sentence2018Butler No. CA2016-03-059, 2016-Ohio-7908, ¶ 18 , citing State -6- Butler CA2017-12-182 v. Stubbs, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Schafer v. Rms Realty
green
1 sentence2007Schafer v. RMS Realty (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 244 . {¶ 56} Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Lynch's motion in limine to exclude evidence and testimony of plaintiff's offers to compromise. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Lundgren
green
2 sentences2003Id.; State v. Lundgren (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 474, 479 , 653 N.E.2d 304 ; see, also, Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart (1976), 427 U.S. 539, 554-555 , 96 S.Ct. 2791 , 49 L.Ed.2d 683 . {¶ 36} The trial court found that there was significant “news coverage of * * * the disappearance of Mary Jennifer Love, a search for her over many days, the eventual arrest of the defendant, the recovery of the little girl’s body and her funeral.” However, review of the voir dire examination does not support Lynch’s claim of prejudicial pretrial publicity. 2003Id.; State v. Lundgren (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 474, 479 , 653 N.E.2d 304 ; see, also, Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart (1976), 427 U.S. 539, 554-555 , 96 S.Ct. 2791 , 49 L.Ed.2d 683 . {¶ 36} The trial court found that there was significant “news coverage of * * * the disappearance of Mary Jennifer Love, a search for her over many days, the eventual arrest of the defendant, the recovery of the little girl’s body and her funeral.” However, review of the voir dire examination does not support Lynch’s claim of prejudicial pretrial publicity. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State ex rel. Kelly v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections
green
2 sentences1997Bd. of Elections (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 413, 414 , 639 N.E.2d 78, 79 . {¶ 5} The board, however, did not, as Lynch claims, abuse its discretion or disregard the Westlake Charter by rejecting Lynch’s objection to Corpus’s candidacy. 1997Bd. of Elections (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 413, 414 , 639 N.E.2d 78, 79 . {¶ 5} The board, however, did not, as Lynch claims, abuse its discretion or disregard the Westlake Charter by rejecting Lynch’s objection to Corpus’s candidacy. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.