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 1976–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2014And even there, the court distinguished Knotts based only on the extensive duration of surveillance in that case. {¶ 39} The Supreme Court agreed to review the decision in Maynard in Jones, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 945 , 181 L.Ed.2d 911 , but rather than apply the Katz standard and consider whether the government violated the accused’s reasonable expectation of privacy, the court returned to the earlier Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that was tied to common-law trespass, noting that “for most of our history the Fourth Amendment was understood to embody a particular concern for government trespass u 2014However, the Court also confirmed that "[s]ituations involving merely the transmission of electronic signals without trespass would remain subject to [the] Katz analysis." (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 953 . | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hudson v. Palmer
green
2 sentences2020See Smith, supra; Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). {¶14} The Katz analysis consists of two separate inquiries. 2020See Smith, supra; Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). {¶14} The Katz analysis consists of two separate inquiries. | 2 | 2002–2020 |
Hoffa v. United States
green
2 sentences2025The Court cited Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966), a case in which an informant provided the government with details of a conversation the informant had with the defendant. 2025The Court cited Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966), a case in which an informant provided the government with details of a conversation the informant had with the defendant. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Flonnory
green
1 sentence1976They acknowledged that they paid some of the money during that period of time and successfully solicited patrons in the defendant’s bar. ■ Assignment of Error No.l “The trial court committed reversible error in denying Katz’s motion for acquittal after the city rested because the city failed' to present corroborative evidence of the specific crime alleged as required in order to meet its burden of proof as provided in Akron City Code §606.23 (d).” The. law in Ohio is that a “conviction may be based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, except where otherwise specifically provided | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Peasley
green
1 sentence1976Assignment of Error No. 2 “The trial court committed reversible error in denying Katz’s motion for acquittal because the proof presented by the city as a matter of law did not show a violation of Akron City Code §606.23.” Judge Washburn, in Smith v. State (1931), 41 Ohio App. 64, 67 , stated that: “Mere approval or acquiescence, without expressed concurrence or the doing of something to contribute to an unlawful act, is not an aiding or abetting of the act, State v. Peasley, 79 Wash., 99 , 141 P., 316 . *16 “Without previous connection with the transaction, one is not an aider or abettor unles | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence1976Assignment of Error No. 2 “The trial court committed reversible error in denying Katz’s motion for acquittal because the proof presented by the city as a matter of law did not show a violation of Akron City Code §606.23.” Judge Washburn, in Smith v. State (1931), 41 Ohio App. 64, 67 , stated that: “Mere approval or acquiescence, without expressed concurrence or the doing of something to contribute to an unlawful act, is not an aiding or abetting of the act, State v. Peasley, 79 Wash., 99 , 141 P., 316 . *16 “Without previous connection with the transaction, one is not an aider or abettor unles | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.