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.
8 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2013 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. Shindlergreen2 sentences2013See State v. Shindler (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 54 , 58 636 N.E.2d 319 . * * * In Schindler, the Ohio Supreme Court found that a motion to suppress drafted in the same manner and language as a sample motion that appeared in Painter & Looker, Ohio Driving Under the Influence Law (1999) 136-37, Section 11.16, satisfied the requirements of Crim.R. 47. 2013See State v. Shindler (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 54 , 58 636 N.E.2d 319 . * * * In Schindler, the Ohio Supreme Court found that a motion to suppress drafted in the same manner and language as a sample motion that appeared in Painter & Looker, Ohio Driving Under the Influence Law (1999) 136-37, Section 11.16, satisfied the requirements of Crim.R. 47. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Plummergreen2 sentences2004See State v. Plummer (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 490 N.E.2d 902 , syllabus. 2004See State v. Plummer (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 490 N.E.2d 902 , syllabus. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Defiance v. Kretz
green
2 sentences2003Defiance v. Kretz (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 1 , 3 . 2000Defiance v. Kretz (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 1 , 3 . | 3 | 1999–2003 |
State v. Conley, 2007 Ca 52 (2-15-2008)
neutral
1 sentence2013Greene No. 2007 CA 52, 2008-Ohio-609 , we discussed the requirements for admissibility of a breath test when it is challenged in a motion to suppress as follows: “When the admissibility of a breath test is challenged in a motion to suppress, the first issue that must be considered is whether the motion was stated with sufficient particularity to put the prosecutor and the court on notice of the basis of the challenge. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2003State v. Williams (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 37 , 41 . {¶ 7} When a defendant challenges the admissibility of a breath test based upon a failure to comply with a Department of Health regulation, the state need only demonstrate substantial compliance, rather than strict compliance, with that regulation. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.