8 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bayless
green
2 sentences1998State v. Bayless (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 73 , 2 O.O.3d 249 , 357 N.E.2d 1035 , paragraph seven of the syllabus. 1998State v. Bayless (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 73 , 2 O.O.3d 249 , 357 N.E.2d 1035 , paragraph seven of the syllabus. | 2 | 1993–1998 |
State v. Green
green
1 sentence2018Knox No. 15-CA- 13, 2015-Ohio-4441 , we overruled appellant’s assignments of error and affirmed the judgment entry of the trial court. {¶5} Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence to correct and resentence on December 6, 2017. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Eastham
green
1 sentence2007Id. {¶ 83} In the case sub judice, the state asked McHugh what her disposition of the sexual abuse allegation was, and she explained that she "indicated" abuse. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Boston
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 129 . {¶ 64} Based upon our understanding of Boston and its progeny, we find that Mrs. Morstatter's testimony concerning the victim's veracity was improper. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner
green
1 sentence2002Richard v. Seidner (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 116 , 117 , citing S. Ohio Coal Co. v. Kidney (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 661 , 667 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Southern Ohio Coal Co. v. Kidney
green
1 sentence2002Richard v. Seidner (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 116 , 117 , citing S. Ohio Coal Co. v. Kidney (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 661 , 667 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Myers
green
2 sentences1999In State v. Myers (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 190 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated that the quantity of evidence necessary to rebut an evidential presumption depends upon which party has the ultimate burden of proof: " 'The degree of proof necessary to remove a presumption is not to be confused with the degree necessary to sustain the burden of proof. 1999When a party is not required to sustain the burden of proof upon some particular issue, a rebuttable presumption arising out of such issue may be overcome by evidence which counterbalances the evidence to sustain the presumption; however, when such party is required to assume the burden of proof upon an issue, any rebuttable presumption arising therefrom must be removed by the same degree of proof necessary to sustain the issue.' " Id. at 201-202 , quoting Kennedy v. Walcutt (1928), 118 Ohio St. 442 , paragraph five of the syllabus. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Adomeit v. Baltimore
green
1 sentence1999In Adomeit v. Baltimore , 39 Ohio App.2d at 105 , the court explained that where a movant provides allegations of fact that could warrant judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), the trial court abuses its discretion when it does not hold an evidential hearing. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Kennedy v. Walcutt
green
1 sentence1999When a party is not required to sustain the burden of proof upon some particular issue, a rebuttable presumption arising out of such issue may be overcome by evidence which counterbalances the evidence to sustain the presumption; however, when such party is required to assume the burden of proof upon an issue, any rebuttable presumption arising therefrom must be removed by the same degree of proof necessary to sustain the issue.' " Id. at 201-202 , quoting Kennedy v. Walcutt (1928), 118 Ohio St. 442 , paragraph five of the syllabus. | 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.