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 1908–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Millergreen2 sentences2002Cf. People v. Miller (Colo.App.1998), 981 P.2d 654, 658 (holding that the exclusion of specific acts intended to prove a victim’s sexual orientation was proper because sexual orientation does not prove an essential element of self-defense). 6 January Term, 2002 {¶ 13} Given the plain language of Evid.R. 404 and 405 and the weight of compelling persuasive authority, we hold that a defendant asserting self-defense cannot introduce evidence of specific instances of a victim’s conduct to prove that the victim was the initial aggressor. 2002Cf. People v. Miller (Colo.App.1998), 981 P.2d 654, 658 (holding that the exclusion of specific acts intended to prove a victim’s sexual orientation was proper because sexual orientation does not prove an essential element of self-defense). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kniepgreen1 sentence2014No. 2002-P-0134, 2004-Ohio-6181 (pursuant to invited error doctrine, murder defendant could not claim on appeal any error with respect to detective's reference to polygraph, where defense counsel elicited the testimony on direct examination); State v. Kniep, 87 Ohio App.3d 681, 686 (9th Dist.1993) (when testimony regarding a defendant's refusal to take a polygraph is elicited by the defense, the invited error doctrine prohibits the defendant from asserting the error on appeal). {¶ 23} In our opinion, Gloege's references to a "test" were so subtle and so unobtrusive as to be easily overlooked b | 1 | 1 |
State v. Custodiogreen1 sentence2012Proof of a victim’s violent character does not show that the victim was the first aggressor in a particular conflict, nor does proof of a victim’s passive demeanor foreclose the defendant from asserting a claim of self-defense.” Id. at 25 quoting State v. Custodio, 136 Idaho -17- 197, 30 P.3d 975, 982 (App.2001) as persuasive authority. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodruffgreen1 sentence1999See, also, State v. Kniep (1993), 87 Ohio App. 681 , 686 (holding that when testimony regarding a defendant's refusal to take a polygraph is elicited by the defense, the invited error doctrine prohibits the defendant from asserting the error on appeal), citing State v. Woodruff (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 326 , 327 ; State v. Hill (187), 37 Ohio App.3d 723 , 75-76 . | 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. Newell
green
2 sentences2002Proof of a victim’s violent character does not show that the victim was the first aggressor in a particular conflict, nor does proof of a victim’s passive demeanor foreclose the defendant from asserting a claim of self-defense”); Allen v. State (Alaska App.1997), 945 P.2d 1233, 1240-1241 ; Brooks v. State (Ind.1997), 683 N.E.2d 574, 576-577 ; State v. Newell (1996), 141 N.H. 199, 201-202 , 679 A.2d 1142, 1144-1145 . 2002Proof of a victim’s violent character does not show that the victim was the first aggressor in a particular conflict, nor does proof of a victim’s passive demeanor foreclose the defendant from asserting a claim of self-defense”); Allen v. State (Alaska App.1997), 945 P.2d 1233, 1240-1241 ; Brooks v. State (Ind.1997), 683 N.E.2d 574, 576-577 ; State v. Newell (1996), 141 N.H. 199, 201-202 , 679 A.2d 1142, 1144-1145 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Allen v. State
green
2 sentences2002Proof of a victim’s violent character does not show that the victim was the first aggressor in a particular conflict, nor does proof of a victim’s passive demeanor foreclose the defendant from asserting a claim of self-defense”); Allen v. State (Alaska App.1997), 945 P.2d 1233, 1240-1241 ; Brooks v. State (Ind.1997), 683 N.E.2d 574, 576-577 ; State v. Newell (1996), 141 N.H. 199, 201-202 , 679 A.2d 1142, 1144-1145 . 2002Proof of a victim’s violent character does not show that the victim was the first aggressor in a particular conflict, nor does proof of a victim’s passive demeanor foreclose the defendant from asserting a claim of self-defense”); Allen v. State (Alaska App.1997), 945 P.2d 1233, 1240-1241 ; Brooks v. State (Ind.1997), 683 N.E.2d 574, 576-577 ; State v. Newell (1996), 141 N.H. 199, 201-202 , 679 A.2d 1142, 1144-1145 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Brooks v. State
green
2 sentences2002Proof of a victim’s violent character does not show that the victim was the first aggressor in a particular conflict, nor does proof of a victim’s passive demeanor foreclose the defendant from asserting a claim of self-defense”); Allen v. State (Alaska App.1997), 945 P.2d 1233, 1240-1241 ; Brooks v. State (Ind.1997), 683 N.E.2d 574, 576-577 ; State v. Newell (1996), 141 N.H. 199, 201-202 , 679 A.2d 1142, 1144-1145 . 2002Proof of a victim’s violent character does not show that the victim was the first aggressor in a particular conflict, nor does proof of a victim’s passive demeanor foreclose the defendant from asserting a claim of self-defense”); Allen v. State (Alaska App.1997), 945 P.2d 1233, 1240-1241 ; Brooks v. State (Ind.1997), 683 N.E.2d 574, 576-577 ; State v. Newell (1996), 141 N.H. 199, 201-202 , 679 A.2d 1142, 1144-1145 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Handwork, Unpublished Decision (11-19-2004)
neutral
1 sentence2014No. 2002-P-0134, 2004-Ohio-6181 (pursuant to invited error doctrine, murder defendant could not claim on appeal any error with respect to detective's reference to polygraph, where defense counsel elicited the testimony on direct examination); State v. Kniep, 87 Ohio App.3d 681, 686 (9th Dist.1993) (when testimony regarding a defendant's refusal to take a polygraph is elicited by the defense, the invited error doctrine prohibits the defendant from asserting the error on appeal). {¶ 23} In our opinion, Gloege's references to a "test" were so subtle and so unobtrusive as to be easily overlooked b | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Barnes
green
1 sentence2012Proof of a victim’s violent character does not show that the victim was the first aggressor in a particular conflict, nor does proof of a victim’s passive demeanor foreclose the defendant from asserting a claim of self-defense.” Id. at 25 quoting State v. Custodio, 136 Idaho -17- 197, 30 P.3d 975, 982 (App.2001) as persuasive authority. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Barber
green
1 sentence2011Auth., 127 Ohio St.3d 1460 , 2010-Ohio-6008 , 938 N.E.2d 362 . –7– {¶ 16} In Sampson, we found that the plaintiff’s claims, including her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, clearly arose out of his employment relationship, thereby barring the defendant from asserting immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.09(B). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Riggenbach
green
1 sentence2011Auth., 127 Ohio St.3d 1460 , 2010-Ohio-6008 , 938 N.E.2d 362 . –7– {¶ 16} In Sampson, we found that the plaintiff’s claims, including her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, clearly arose out of his employment relationship, thereby barring the defendant from asserting immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.09(B). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Samuels
green
1 sentence2011Auth., 127 Ohio St.3d 1460 , 2010-Ohio-6008 , 938 N.E.2d 362 . –7– {¶ 16} In Sampson, we found that the plaintiff’s claims, including her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, clearly arose out of his employment relationship, thereby barring the defendant from asserting immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.09(B). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Livingston v. Diocese of Cleveland
green
2 sentences2001In Livingston v. Diocese of Cleveland (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 299 , 710 N.E.2d 330 , this court discussed the doctrine of equitable estoppel as it pertains to the defense of the statute of limitations. 2001In Livingston v. Diocese of Cleveland (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 299 , 710 N.E.2d 330 , this court discussed the doctrine of equitable estoppel as it pertains to the defense of the statute of limitations. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hart v. Sansom
green
1 sentence1908In Hart v. Sansom, 110 U. S. 151 , 28 L. ed. 101, the court said: “Generally, if not universally, equity jurisdiction is exercised in personam and not in rem; and depends upon the control of the court over the parties, by reason of their presence or residence, and not upon the place where the land lies in regard to which relief is sought. 'Opon a bill for the removal of a cloud upon title, as upon a bill for the specific performance of an agreement to convey, the decree, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute, is clearly not a judgment in rem, establishing a title in land, but operates | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.