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 1997–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Straley (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2025See Straley, 2019-Ohio-5206 , at ¶ 23 (“Res judicata generally bars a defendant from raising a claim in a Crim.R. 32.1 postsentencing motion to withdraw a guilty plea that he raised or could have raised on direct appeal.”); State v. Burton, 2023-Ohio-4370, ¶ 22 (11th Dist.) (because the appellant could have raised his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and double jeopardy in a direct appeal of his sentence, the claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata). {¶23} A review of the record reveals DiTomaso apparently suffered from “buyer’s remorse” as to the sex offender classificat 2020Accord State v. Straley, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-5206, ¶ 23-27 (holding that res judicata barred a Crim.R. 32.1 claim of noncompliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) in not advising that sentences were mandatory). {¶8} Hill pled guilty to three first-degree felonies, for which he was subject to concurrent mandatory five-year terms of postrelease control. | 2 | 2 |
Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co.green2 sentences2024See also Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427 (1996), syllabus (noting that the failure to raise an affirmative defense “before or during trial [also] precludes the defendant from raising the defense for the first time in a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict”). -61- However, “Civ.R. 8(F) states that the pleadings of the parties are to be ‘construed as to do substantial justice,’ which further supports the notion that pleadings should be construed in order to dispose of cases on their merits rather than technicalities.” Reed at ¶ 42. 1997In Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., supra, 74 Ohio St.3d 427 , 659 N.E.2d 1232 , we stated, as syllabus law, that “[flailure to raise primary assumption of risk before or during trial precludes the defendant from raising the defense for the first time in a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” Because the doctrine of primary assumption of risk was first raised in this case, as in Gallagher , in a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the law established in Gallagher precludes further consideration of that doctrine in this case. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Burtongreen1 sentence2025See Straley, 2019-Ohio-5206 , at ¶ 23 (“Res judicata generally bars a defendant from raising a claim in a Crim.R. 32.1 postsentencing motion to withdraw a guilty plea that he raised or could have raised on direct appeal.”); State v. Burton, 2023-Ohio-4370, ¶ 22 (11th Dist.) (because the appellant could have raised his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and double jeopardy in a direct appeal of his sentence, the claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata). {¶23} A review of the record reveals DiTomaso apparently suffered from “buyer’s remorse” as to the sex offender classificat | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ketterergreen2 sentences2020See State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 , 2010-Ohio-3831 , 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 59 (holding that res judicata generally bars a defendant from raising a claim in a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion that was or could have been raised on direct appeal). 2020See State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 , 2010-Ohio-3831 , 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 59 (holding that res judicata generally bars a defendant from raising a claim in a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion that was or could have been raised on direct appeal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pociusgreen1 sentence1999See State v. Pocius (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 18 , 23 . | 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. Blanton
green
2 sentences2025State v. Wogenstahl, 2024- Ohio-2714, ¶ 24, citing State v. Blanton, 171 Ohio St.3d 19 , 2022-Ohio-3985, ¶ 2 . 2025State v. Wogenstahl, 2024- Ohio-2714, ¶ 24, citing State v. Blanton, 171 Ohio St.3d 19 , 2022-Ohio-3985, ¶ 2 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Church at Warren v. Warzala
green
1 sentence2024Critically, “[i]f a party raises a ‘generic’ defense in its answer, it is acceptable to make fair interpolations of more specific defenses that might naturally be included in that defense.” Id. at ¶ 47, citing Gallagher at 432-433 . {¶130} Likewise, “‘[w]hen issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.’” Church at Warren v. Warzala, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2016-T-0073, 2017-Ohio-6947, ¶ 19 , quoting Civ.R. 15(B). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Jim's Steak House, Inc. v. City of Cleveland
green
1 sentence1999While failure to assert a defense in an answer or pretrial pleading usually precludes a defendant from raising the defense at trial, Jim's Steak House, Inc. v. City of Cleveland (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 18 , 20 , we find the trial court to be correct in holding that Appellee waived the right to object and impliedly consented to presentation of the defense at trial because it failed to raise the issue or make an objection based on this issue. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.