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 2004–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hungler v. City of Cincinnatigreen2 sentences2021"There must be sufficient basis in the record * * * upon which the court can decide that error." (Emphasis sic.) Hungler v. Cincinnati, 25 Ohio St.3d 338, 342 (1986). 2018In order to "recognize error not assigned by the parties, there must be sufficient basis in the record before it upon which the court can decide that error." (Emphasis sic.) Id. at 342 , 496 N.E.2d 912 . | 7 | 8 |
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratoriesgreen2 sentences2017Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980). "[T]here must be sufficient basis in the record * * * upon which the court can decide that error." Hungler v. Cincinnati, 25 Ohio St.3d 338, 342 (1986). {¶ 19} In this case, Wiggins points to nothing in the record to support this claim. 2017Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980). "[T]here must be sufficient basis in the record * * * upon which the court can decide that error." (Emphasis sic.) Hungler v. Cincinnati, 25 Ohio St.3d 338, 342 (1986). {¶ 30} First, we note that Stephens' purported recorded statement is not in the record. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Peaglergreen2 sentences2018See also State v. Peagler , 76 Ohio St.3d 496 , 499, 668 N.E.2d 489 (1996) (stating that App.R. 12"allows a court of appeals discretion in deciding to address an issue not briefed or raised below, the court of appeals must base any factual conclusions reached upon evidence that exists in the record"). 2018See also State v. Peagler , 76 Ohio St.3d 496 , 499, 668 N.E.2d 489 (1996) (stating that App.R. 12"allows a court of appeals discretion in deciding to address an issue not briefed or raised below, the court of appeals must base any factual conclusions reached upon evidence that exists in the record"). | 1 | 2 |
State v. 1981 Dodge Ram Vangreen1 sentence2004See, also, State v. 1981 Dodge Ram Van (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 168 , 170 . {¶ 11} The Ohio Supreme Court explained in a subsequent case that, when reaching a question not assigned by the parties, there "must be sufficient basis in the record before it upon which the court can decide that error." (Emphasis sic.) Hungler v. Cincinnati (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 338 , 342 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Massaro v. United States
green
2 sentences2011Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 . “[T]here must be sufficient basis in the record * * * upon which the court can decide that error.” Hungler v. Cincinnati (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 338, 342 (emphasis sic). {¶50} In Massaro v. United States (2003), 538 U.S. 500 , 123 S.Ct. 1690 , 155 L.Ed.2d 714 , the United States Supreme Court emphasized the general unreviewability of trial counsel ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal. {¶51} “When an ineffective-assistance claim is brought on direct appeal, appellate counsel and the court must proceed on a trial re 2011Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 . “[T]here must be sufficient basis in the record * * * upon which the court can decide that error.” Hungler v. Cincinnati (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 338, 342 (emphasis sic). {¶50} In Massaro v. United States (2003), 538 U.S. 500 , 123 S.Ct. 1690 , 155 L.Ed.2d 714 , the United States Supreme Court emphasized the general unreviewability of trial counsel ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal. {¶51} “When an ineffective-assistance claim is brought on direct appeal, appellate counsel and the court must proceed on a trial re | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.