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 2 courts 1997–2022 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. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2001See State v. Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164 , 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264 , paragraph four of the syllabus. 2001See State v. Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164 , 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264 , paragraph four of the 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Campbell
green
2 sentences1999Hence, “[cjounsel could reasonably assume that the judge[s] would be unaffected by any inflammatory material * * *.” State v. Campbell (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 38, 43 , 630 N.E.2d 339, 346 . (4) Bays contends that his trial counsel should have asked for the appointment of a defense investigator under R.C. 2929.024. 1999Hence, “[cjounsel could reasonably assume that the judge[s] would be unaffected by any inflammatory material * * *.” State v. Campbell (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 38, 43 , 630 N.E.2d 339, 346 . (4) Bays contends that his trial counsel should have asked for the appointment of a defense investigator under R.C. 2929.024. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Jalowiec
green
1 sentence2022State v. Jalowiec, 91 Ohio St. 3d 220, 236 , 2001-Ohio-26 , 744 N.E.2d 163, 180 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Jalowiec
green
2 sentences2022State v. Jalowiec, 91 Ohio St. 3d 220, 236 , 2001-Ohio-26 , 744 N.E.2d 163, 180 . 2022State v. Jalowiec, 91 Ohio St. 3d 220, 236 , 2001-Ohio-26 , 744 N.E.2d 163, 180 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Carnley v. Cochran
green
1 sentence2021Anything less is not waiver." Wellman at paragraph two of the syllabus, following Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (1962). {¶ 33} Crim.R. 44 also address the appointment and waiver of counsel. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2006Competency Hearing {¶ 148} Johnson contends that when the trial court ordered a competency hearing after the guilt phase, defense counsel should have requested the appointment of a defense psychiatrist, pursuant to Ake v. Oklahoma (1985), 470 U.S. 68 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 . 2006Competency Hearing {¶ 148} Johnson contends that when the trial court ordered a competency hearing after the guilt phase, defense counsel should have requested the appointment of a defense psychiatrist, pursuant to Ake v. Oklahoma (1985), 470 U.S. 68 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Carroll
green
2 sentences1997As noted by the court in State v. Carroll (1977), 54 Ohio App.2d 160, 171 , 8 O.O.3d 285, 290-291 , 376 N.E.2d 596 , 602: “ ‘In the absence of a contrary statute, due process or the concept of a fair hearing does not require that the actual taking of testimony be before the same officers as are to determine the matter involved. 1997As noted by the court in State v. Carroll (1977), 54 Ohio App.2d 160, 171 , 8 O.O.3d 285, 290-291 , 376 N.E.2d 596 , 602: “ ‘In the absence of a contrary statute, due process or the concept of a fair hearing does not require that the actual taking of testimony be before the same officers as are to determine the matter involved. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.