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 2006–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Lakewood v. Papadelisgreen2 sentences2019Crim.R. 16(L)(1). “‘[I]n determining the appropriate sanction, the trial court must make an inquiry into the circumstances of the discovery violation.’” Stiles at ¶ 45, quoting Engle at ¶ 8 , citing Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1, 511 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus. 2018Adams , 62 Ohio St.2d at 157 -158 , 404 N.E.2d 144 . " '[I]n determining the appropriate sanction, the trial court must make an inquiry into the circumstances of the discovery violation.' " Stiles at ¶ 45, quoting Engle at ¶ 8, citing Lakewood v. Papadelis , 32 Ohio St.3d 1 , 511 N.E.2d 1138 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus. | 3 | 8 |
State v. Parsongreen2 sentences2019“Further, ‘the trial court “must impose the least severe sanction that is consistent with the purpose of the rules of discovery.”’” Id., quoting Engle at ¶ 8 , quoting Papadelis at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶74} The prosecution’s violation of Crim.R. 16 is reversible error “only when there is a showing that (1) the prosecution’s failure to disclose was willful, (2) disclosure of the information prior to trial would have aided the accused’s defense, and (3) the accused suffered prejudice.” State v. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d 53 , 2005- Ohio-5981, ¶ 131, citing State v. Parson, 6 Ohio St.3d 4 2018"Further, 'the trial court "must impose the least severe sanction that is consistent with the purpose of the rules of discovery." ' " Id. , quoting Engle at ¶ 8 , quoting Papadelis at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 117} The prosecution's violation of Crim.R. 16 is reversible error "only when there is a showing that (1) the prosecution's failure to disclose was willful, (2) disclosure of the information prior to trial would have aided the accused's defense, and (3) the accused suffered prejudice." State v. Jackson , 107 Ohio St.3d 53 , 2005-Ohio-5981 , 836 N.E.2d 1173 , ¶ 131, citing State v | 1 | 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. Stiles, 1-08-12 (1-12-2009)
green
2 sentences2024Allen No. 1-08-12, 2009-Ohio-89, ¶ 45 , quoting Engle at ¶ 8, citing Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1, 511 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus. 2024Allen No. 1-08-12, 2009-Ohio-89, ¶ 45 , quoting Engle at ¶ 8, citing Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1, 511 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2019“Further, ‘the trial court “must impose the least severe sanction that is consistent with the purpose of the rules of discovery.”’” Id., quoting Engle at ¶ 8 , quoting Papadelis at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶74} The prosecution’s violation of Crim.R. 16 is reversible error “only when there is a showing that (1) the prosecution’s failure to disclose was willful, (2) disclosure of the information prior to trial would have aided the accused’s defense, and (3) the accused suffered prejudice.” State v. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d 53 , 2005- Ohio-5981, ¶ 131, citing State v. Parson, 6 Ohio St.3d 4 2018"Further, 'the trial court "must impose the least severe sanction that is consistent with the purpose of the rules of discovery." ' " Id. , quoting Engle at ¶ 8 , quoting Papadelis at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 117} The prosecution's violation of Crim.R. 16 is reversible error "only when there is a showing that (1) the prosecution's failure to disclose was willful, (2) disclosure of the information prior to trial would have aided the accused's defense, and (3) the accused suffered prejudice." State v. Jackson , 107 Ohio St.3d 53 , 2005-Ohio-5981 , 836 N.E.2d 1173 , ¶ 131, citing State v | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Blakemore v. Blakemore
green
2 sentences2009Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . "[I]n determining the appropriate sanction, the trial court must make an inquiry into the circumstances of the discovery violation." Engle , 2006-Ohio-1884 , at ¶ 8 , citing Lakewood v. Papadelis (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 1 , 511 N.E.2d 1138 , paragraph two of the syllabus. 2009Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . "[I]n determining the appropriate sanction, the trial court must make an inquiry into the circumstances of the discovery violation." Engle , 2006-Ohio-1884 , at ¶ 8 , citing Lakewood v. Papadelis (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 1 , 511 N.E.2d 1138 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 2 | 2008–2009 |
State v. Engle
green
2 sentences2009Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . "[I]n determining the appropriate sanction, the trial court must make an inquiry into the circumstances of the discovery violation." Engle , 2006-Ohio-1884 , at ¶ 8 , citing Lakewood v. Papadelis (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 1 , 511 N.E.2d 1138 , paragraph two of the syllabus. 2008Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 , citations omitted. "[I]n determining the appropriate sanction, the trial court must make an inquiry into the circumstances of the discovery violation." Engle , 166 2006-Ohio-1884 , at ¶ 8 , citing Lakewood v. Papadelis (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 1 , 511 N.E.2d 1138 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 2 | 2008–2009 |
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences2018Adams , 62 Ohio St.2d at 157 -158 , 404 N.E.2d 144 . " '[I]n determining the appropriate sanction, the trial court must make an inquiry into the circumstances of the discovery violation.' " Stiles at ¶ 45, quoting Engle at ¶ 8, citing Lakewood v. Papadelis , 32 Ohio St.3d 1 , 511 N.E.2d 1138 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus. 2018Adams , 62 Ohio St.2d at 157 -158 , 404 N.E.2d 144 . " '[I]n determining the appropriate sanction, the trial court must make an inquiry into the circumstances of the discovery violation.' " Stiles at ¶ 45, quoting Engle at ¶ 8, citing Lakewood v. Papadelis , 32 Ohio St.3d 1 , 511 N.E.2d 1138 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State Ex Rel. Strategic Capital Investors, Ltd. v. McCarthy
neutral
2 sentences2006Strategic Capital Investors, Ltd. v. McCarthy (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 237, 247 , 710 N.E.2d 290 . {¶ 8} However, in determining the appropriate sanction, the trial court must make an inquiry into the circumstances of the discovery violation. 2006Strategic Capital Investors, Ltd. v. McCarthy (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 237, 247 , 710 N.E.2d 290 . {¶ 8} However, in determining the appropriate sanction, the trial court must make an inquiry into the circumstances of the discovery violation. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.