9 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2021 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. Grubbgreen2 sentences2012See id. 2007He supports his contention with the following quote: {¶ 49} "As related to trial, a motion in limine is a precautionary request, directed to the inherent discretion of the trial judge, to limit the examination of witnesses by opposing counsel in a specified area until its admissibility is determined by the court outside the presence of the jury." State v. Grubb (1986), 28 Ohio St. 3d 199 , 201 , quoting State v. Spahr (1976), 47 Ohio App.2d 221 . {¶ 50} First, we note that this statement is a quote from an appellate court, which the Supreme Court set forth immediately after noting that the mot | 1 | 2 |
State v. Huntergreen1 sentence2021See generally State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 , 2011- Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955 , ¶ 20, 22, 30 (where the defendant told the police the child fell down the stairs and presented no guilt phase witnesses, the Court upheld the decision to admit evidence on prior incidents of injury to the child which the defendant had reported were a result of his falling while holding the child).2 We note a defendant often does not present witnesses because the state’s witnesses have the information relevant to defending the case, defendants rarely testify, and there is no formal notice a defendant must file | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jeffrey Riddle (99-3405) Lavance Turnage (99-3406) Bernard Altshuler (99-3439)green1 sentence2008See State v. Davis , 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2008-Ohio-2 , _92, citing United States v. Riddle (C.A.6, 2001), 249 F.3d 529 , 534 . {¶ 97} Moreover, even if his counsel had not waived his right to be present at the motion in limine hearing, we have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and conclude that R.G. was present at every critical stage in his trial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2008See State v. Davis , 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2008-Ohio-2 , _92, citing United States v. Riddle (C.A.6, 2001), 249 F.3d 529 , 534 . {¶ 97} Moreover, even if his counsel had not waived his right to be present at the motion in limine hearing, we have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and conclude that R.G. was present at every critical stage in his trial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hancockgreen1 sentence2007See, also, State v. Hancock , 108 Ohio St. 3d 57 , 2006-Ohio-160 , ¶ 59 (notwithstanding motion in limine, objecting party must challenge evidence during trial when issue is presented in full context). {¶ 54} Because appellant failed to challenge the evidence during trial when it was presented in full context, only a plain error analysis can be conducted. | 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 v. Evick
green
1 sentence2021Clinton No. CA2019-05-010, 2020-Ohio-3072, ¶ 45 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. Finley
green
1 sentence2019The court said that the government’s position accorded with the law and ordered -8- that “[a]rgument concerning entrapment is thus not to be included in any opening statements which are made before the government puts on its case.” Id. {¶ 16} In another case, the government filed a motion in limine to bar the defendant from presenting an entrapment defense at trial, arguing that the defendant could not set forth sufficient prima facie evidence to demonstrate a viable entrapment issue. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. James W. Blassingame and Thomas S. Fuller
green
1 sentence2019United States v. Blassingame, 197 F.3d 271 (7th Cir.1999). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Adams
green
1 sentence2016Hence, it is irrelevant that appellate counsel did not specifically raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel. 2012-Ohio-2719 , 2012 WL 2308131 , at ¶ 34. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Huertas
green
1 sentence2011State v. Huertas (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 22, 31 . ¶{305} Mr. Robinson testified at the motion in limine hearing that the victim called him immediately after every call appellant made to her. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Bradley
green
2 sentences2009“A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d at 142 , 538 N.E.2d 373 ; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . {¶61} At the motion in limine hearing, Sanders’ trial counsel attempted to waive his right to a trial by jury as it related to the State’s burden in proving the element of a prior conviction in the charge of having a weapon while under disability. 2009“A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d at 142 , 538 N.E.2d 373 ; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . {¶61} At the motion in limine hearing, Sanders’ trial counsel attempted to waive his right to a trial by jury as it related to the State’s burden in proving the element of a prior conviction in the charge of having a weapon while under disability. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Spahr
green
2 sentences2007He supports his contention with the following quote: {¶ 49} "As related to trial, a motion in limine is a precautionary request, directed to the inherent discretion of the trial judge, to limit the examination of witnesses by opposing counsel in a specified area until its admissibility is determined by the court outside the presence of the jury." State v. Grubb (1986), 28 Ohio St. 3d 199 , 201 , quoting State v. Spahr (1976), 47 Ohio App.2d 221 . {¶ 50} First, we note that this statement is a quote from an appellate court, which the Supreme Court set forth immediately after noting that the mot 2007He supports his contention with the following quote: {¶ 49} "As related to trial, a motion in limine is a precautionary request, directed to the inherent discretion of the trial judge, to limit the examination of witnesses by opposing counsel in a specified area until its admissibility is determined by the court outside the presence of the jury." State v. Grubb (1986), 28 Ohio St. 3d 199 , 201 , quoting State v. Spahr (1976), 47 Ohio App.2d 221 . {¶ 50} First, we note that this statement is a quote from an appellate court, which the Supreme Court set forth immediately after noting that the mot | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.