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 2004–2017 0 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. Stallingsgreen2 sentences2014See Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , at ¶ 246. {¶ 237} In addition, Thompson cannot show prejudice as a result of the alleged error. “[SJhorthand references to legal concepts during voir dire cannot be equated to final instructions given shortly before the jury’s penalty deliberations.” State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 280, 285 , 731 N.E.2d 159 (2000). 2014See Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , at ¶ 246. {¶ 237} In addition, Thompson cannot show prejudice as a result of the alleged error. “[SJhorthand references to legal concepts during voir dire cannot be equated to final instructions given shortly before the jury’s penalty deliberations.” State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 280, 285 , 731 N.E.2d 159 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Langgreen2 sentences2014See Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , at ¶ 246. {¶ 237} In addition, Thompson cannot show prejudice as a result of the alleged error. “[SJhorthand references to legal concepts during voir dire cannot be equated to final instructions given shortly before the jury’s penalty deliberations.” State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 280, 285 , 731 N.E.2d 159 (2000). 2014See Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , at ¶ 246. {¶ 237} In addition, Thompson cannot show prejudice as a result of the alleged error. “[SJhorthand references to legal concepts during voir dire cannot be equated to final instructions given shortly before the jury’s penalty deliberations.” State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 280, 285 , 731 N.E.2d 159 (2000). | 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. Johnson
green
2 sentences2011State v. Johnson (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 130, 133 , 532 N.E.2d 1295 . 2011State v. Johnson (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 130, 133 , 532 N.E.2d 1295 . | 2 | 2005–2011 |
Coleman v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2009No. 2003-T-0129, 2004-Ohio-3933 , at ¶ 13 , quoting Coleman v. Thompson (1997), 501 U.S. 722 , 750 . 4 The affidavits of Yolanda Johnson and Delphenia Guice were handwritten. 2004Id. at 493 . {¶ 13} The "cause and prejudice" doctrine provides as follows: "In all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." Coleman v. Thompson (1997), 501 U.S. 722 , 750 . | 2 | 2004–2009 |
Padilla v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2016Under this “actual prejudice” prong, the defendant must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . {¶34} Based upon our analysis and disposition of Appellant’s first assigned error, we find Appellant’s argument with regard to counsel’s failure to argue allied offenses moot. {¶35} With regard to our analysis and disposition of Appellant’s second assignment of error, we find Appellant has not demonstrated prejudice as a result of the alleged error. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Blakemore v. Blakemore
green
1 sentence2013Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983). {¶35} Upon our review of the record, assuming arguendo the trial court erred in the admission of the evidence cited by Appellant, we find Appellant has not demonstrated prejudice as a result of the alleged error. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Pough, Unpublished Decision (7-23-2004)
green
1 sentence2009No. 2003-T-0129, 2004-Ohio-3933 , at ¶ 13 , quoting Coleman v. Thompson (1997), 501 U.S. 722 , 750 . 4 The affidavits of Yolanda Johnson and Delphenia Guice were handwritten. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Basham v. Basham, 06ca3085 (5-14-2007)
green
1 sentence2009Medley v. Medley (August 31, 1998), Licking App. No. 98 CA 8. {¶ 148} Husband cites the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in Basham v. Basham , 2007-Ohio-3941 : *Page 17 {¶ 149} "We also recognize that the parties in the case placed the trial court in a difficult position because neither side produced evidence concerning the company's value. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
McCleskey v. Zant
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 493 . {¶ 13} The "cause and prejudice" doctrine provides as follows: "In all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." Coleman v. Thompson (1997), 501 U.S. 722 , 750 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.