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 1990–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Evansgreen2 sentences2014No. 2001-P-0140, 2002-Ohio-7158 , at ¶18. {¶11} “In Evans, supra, at 63 , we noted a host of factors collected from various cases which may be considered by a court to determine whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests under the totality of the circumstances: {¶12} “‘(1) the time of day of the stop (Friday or Saturday night as opposed to, e.g., Tuesday morning); (2) the location of the stop (whether near establishments selling alcohol); (3) any indicia of erratic driving before the stop that may indicate a lack of coordination (speeding, weaving, unusual b 2006No. 2001-P-0140, 2002-Ohio-7158 , at ¶ 18. {¶ 14} In Evans, supra, at 63 , we noted a host of factors collected from various cases which may be considered by a court to determine whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests under the totality of the circumstances: {¶ 15} "(1) the time of day of the stop (Friday or Saturday night as opposed to, e.g., Tuesday morning); (2) the location of the stop (whether near establishments selling alcohol); (3) any indicia of erratic driving before the stop that may indicate a lack of coordination (speeding, weaving, unusual | 1 | 4 |
Davis v. Wooster Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, Inc.green1 sentence2016See Davis v. Wooster Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, Inc., 193 Ohio App.3d 581 , 2011-Ohio- 7. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
green
2 sentences2014These factors include the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case.” Van Arsdall, supra. {¶29} To give full effect to the damaging potential of the improper denial of Trump’s cross-examination, we must presume that Trump made a sworn statement that Raia engaged in conduct that appeared to be sexual conduct 1995These factors include the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684 , 106 S.Ct. at 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d at 686-687 . | 3 | 1990–2014 |
Family Medicine Foundation, Inc. v. Bright
green
1 sentence2016"In order to determine that intent, the court may consider a host of factors, including the object sought to be obtained by the statute." Family Medicine Found., Inc. v. Bright, 96 Ohio St.3d 183 , 2002-Ohio-4034, ¶ 9 , citing R.C. 1.49.7 {¶ 45} Only one other court has examined the apology statute to determine whether it prohibits statements of fault or statements admitting liability from being admitted at trial. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Family Medicine Found Inc. v. Bright
green
1 sentence2016"In order to determine that intent, the court may consider a host of factors, including the object sought to be obtained by the statute." Family Medicine Found., Inc. v. Bright, 96 Ohio St.3d 183 , 2002-Ohio-4034, ¶ 9 , citing R.C. 1.49.7 {¶ 45} Only one other court has examined the apology statute to determine whether it prohibits statements of fault or statements admitting liability from being admitted at trial. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.