8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2025State v. Steele, 2013- Ohio-2470, ¶ 30 (“Because there was no explicit case law or statutory guidance in Ohio on the standard of proving a police officer’s loss of privilege to arrest, it would be difficult to conclude that the trial court’s failure to invent such an instruction constitutes an obvious error.”); Barnes at 28 (explaining that even though the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury with respect to whether the offense of felonious assault with a deadly weapon constituted a lesser included offense of the charged offense of attempted murder, the error was not plain because of “[ 2011First, there must be an error.21 Second, the error must be “obvious.”22 And third, the error must have affected a 17 State v. Gordon (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 184, 186 , 458 N.E.2d 1277 . 18 See Morisette v. United States (1952), 342 U.S. 246, 250-252 , 72 S.Ct. 240 . 19 Cf. United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, 906 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 . 20 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27, 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 . 21 Id. 22 Id. 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS substantial right─meaning that the error must have affected the outcome of the trial.23 {¶21} We have already determined that there was an error in t | 1 | 2 |
State v. Walkergreen1 sentence2025State v. Steele, 2013- Ohio-2470, ¶ 30 (“Because there was no explicit case law or statutory guidance in Ohio on the standard of proving a police officer’s loss of privilege to arrest, it would be difficult to conclude that the trial court’s failure to invent such an instruction constitutes an obvious error.”); Barnes at 28 (explaining that even though the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury with respect to whether the offense of felonious assault with a deadly weapon constituted a lesser included offense of the charged offense of attempted murder, the error was not plain because of “[ | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Eric Vaughngreen1 sentence2025See United States v. Turner, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30968 , *3 (6th Cir. 25 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Dec. 6, 2024) (to establish plain error, the appellant “must identify a case in our court or the Supreme Court evidencing the error”); United States v. Vaughn, 119 F.4th 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 2024), citing United States v. Al-Maliki, 787 F.3d 784, 794 (6th Cir. 2015) (a finding of plain error will be precluded by both a circuit split and a “lack of binding case law”). {¶56} While the trial court’s failure to provide the jury in this case with final instructions and/or verdict forms tha | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Malek al-Malikigreen1 sentence2025See United States v. Turner, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30968 , *3 (6th Cir. 25 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Dec. 6, 2024) (to establish plain error, the appellant “must identify a case in our court or the Supreme Court evidencing the error”); United States v. Vaughn, 119 F.4th 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 2024), citing United States v. Al-Maliki, 787 F.3d 784, 794 (6th Cir. 2015) (a finding of plain error will be precluded by both a circuit split and a “lack of binding case law”). {¶56} While the trial court’s failure to provide the jury in this case with final instructions and/or verdict forms tha | 1 | 1 |
Vouniseas's Casegreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., Vouniseas’ Case, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 133 , 324 N.E.2d 916 (1975); Workmen’s Comp. 2012See, e.g., Vouniseas’ Case, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 133 , 324 N.E.2d 916 (1975); Workmen’s Comp. | 1 | 1 |
Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp.green1 sentence1991See, e.g., Hercules, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., supra, 434 F.Supp. at 156 . | 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 ex rel. Hammond v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1998The General Assembly, however, has specified that no compensation will be paid under divisions (B) or (C) in the event of a partial loss of hearing, and it is our duty to enforce the scheme as it is designed.” Id. at 240-241 , 18 O.O.3d at 440-441 , 416 N.E.2d at 604 . 1998The General Assembly, however, has specified that no compensation will be paid under divisions (B) or (C) in the event of a partial loss of hearing, and it is our duty to enforce the scheme as it is designed.” Id. at 240-241 , 18 O.O.3d at 440-441 , 416 N.E.2d at 604 . | 2 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences2011First, there must be an error.21 Second, the error must be “obvious.”22 And third, the error must have affected a 17 State v. Gordon (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 184, 186 , 458 N.E.2d 1277 . 18 See Morisette v. United States (1952), 342 U.S. 246, 250-252 , 72 S.Ct. 240 . 19 Cf. United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, 906 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 . 20 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27, 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 . 21 Id. 22 Id. 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS substantial right─meaning that the error must have affected the outcome of the trial.23 {¶21} We have already determined that there was an error in t 2011First, there must be an error.21 Second, the error must be “obvious.”22 And third, the error must have affected a 17 State v. Gordon (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 184, 186 , 458 N.E.2d 1277 . 18 See Morisette v. United States (1952), 342 U.S. 246, 250-252 , 72 S.Ct. 240 . 19 Cf. United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, 906 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 . 20 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27, 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 . 21 Id. 22 Id. 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS substantial right─meaning that the error must have affected the outcome of the trial.23 {¶21} We have already determined that there was an error in t | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Morissette v. United States
green
2 sentences2011First, there must be an error.21 Second, the error must be “obvious.”22 And third, the error must have affected a 17 State v. Gordon (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 184, 186 , 458 N.E.2d 1277 . 18 See Morisette v. United States (1952), 342 U.S. 246, 250-252 , 72 S.Ct. 240 . 19 Cf. United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, 906 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 . 20 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27, 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 . 21 Id. 22 Id. 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS substantial right─meaning that the error must have affected the outcome of the trial.23 {¶21} We have already determined that there was an error in t 2011First, there must be an error.21 Second, the error must be “obvious.”22 And third, the error must have affected a 17 State v. Gordon (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 184, 186 , 458 N.E.2d 1277 . 18 See Morisette v. United States (1952), 342 U.S. 246, 250-252 , 72 S.Ct. 240 . 19 Cf. United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, 906 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 . 20 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27, 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 . 21 Id. 22 Id. 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS substantial right─meaning that the error must have affected the outcome of the trial.23 {¶21} We have already determined that there was an error in t | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Barnes
green
1 sentence2011First, there must be an error.21 Second, the error must be “obvious.”22 And third, the error must have affected a 17 State v. Gordon (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 184, 186 , 458 N.E.2d 1277 . 18 See Morisette v. United States (1952), 342 U.S. 246, 250-252 , 72 S.Ct. 240 . 19 Cf. United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, 906 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 . 20 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27, 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 . 21 Id. 22 Id. 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS substantial right─meaning that the error must have affected the outcome of the trial.23 {¶21} We have already determined that there was an error in t | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Gordon
green
2 sentences2011First, there must be an error.21 Second, the error must be “obvious.”22 And third, the error must have affected a 17 State v. Gordon (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 184, 186 , 458 N.E.2d 1277 . 18 See Morisette v. United States (1952), 342 U.S. 246, 250-252 , 72 S.Ct. 240 . 19 Cf. United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, 906 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 . 20 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27, 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 . 21 Id. 22 Id. 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS substantial right─meaning that the error must have affected the outcome of the trial.23 {¶21} We have already determined that there was an error in t 2011First, there must be an error.21 Second, the error must be “obvious.”22 And third, the error must have affected a 17 State v. Gordon (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 184, 186 , 458 N.E.2d 1277 . 18 See Morisette v. United States (1952), 342 U.S. 246, 250-252 , 72 S.Ct. 240 . 19 Cf. United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, 906 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 . 20 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27, 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 . 21 Id. 22 Id. 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS substantial right─meaning that the error must have affected the outcome of the trial.23 {¶21} We have already determined that there was an error in t | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial Commission
green
1 sentence2006Id. at 52 . {¶ 21} In a footnote, the Supreme Court in Sheller-Globe Corp. stated: The basic contention of the appellant is that, unless Preston is completely deaf, unable to hear any sound at all in one or both ears, he is not entitled to recover under R.C. 4123.57 (C). {¶ 22} Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in Sheller-Globe Corp., this court had another occasion to apply a standard for a loss of hearing under former R.C. 4123.57 (C) in Kingry v. Indus. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State ex rel. Sheller-Globe Corp. v. Industrial Commission
green
1 sentence2006Comm. (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 51 , and this court in Kingry v. Indus Comm. (Mar. 26, 1985), Franklin App. No. 84AP-109, however, the magistrate concluded that the physician's letter, along with the audiologist's report, constituted some evidence upon which the commission could rely to award R.C. 4123.57 (B) compensation for a total loss of hearing of the right ear. {¶ 3} No objections to that decision have been filed. {¶ 4} Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's decision, this court adopts the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and c | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp.
green
1 sentence2006Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 649 , must fail. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence2003Ferrando , supra. {¶ 22} In the case at bar, we note that Karafa alleged he attempted to identify his employer's insurer, but was prevented from doing so by his employer. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.