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 1978–2015 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. Gasengreen2 sentences1996In paragraph two of the syllabus, the court stated: “Where a trial court denies a continuance in a criminal trial and, as a consequence, defense counsel refuses to participate in the trial for fear that the defendant would receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that counsel would be in violation of DR 6-101(A)(2) and 7-101(A)(3), the court may commit error under the circumstances of the particular case in finding defense counsel in contempt and in imposing a fine.” In State v. Gasen (1976), 48 Ohio App.2d 191 , 2 O.O.3d 156 , 356 N.E.2d 505 , the trial court summarily appointed two atto 1996In paragraph two of the syllabus, the court stated: “Where a trial court denies a continuance in a criminal trial and, as a consequence, defense counsel refuses to participate in the trial for fear that the defendant would receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that counsel would be in violation of DR 6-101(A)(2) and 7-101(A)(3), the court may commit error under the circumstances of the particular case in finding defense counsel in contempt and in imposing a fine.” In State v. Gasen (1976), 48 Ohio App.2d 191 , 2 O.O.3d 156 , 356 N.E.2d 505 , the trial court summarily appointed two atto | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Dayton v. Martin
green
2 sentences2008Id., citing Kilbane." (Parallel citations omitted.) {¶ 24} "Where a trial court denies a continuance in a criminal trial and, as a consequence, defense counsel refuses to participate in the trial for fear that the defendant would receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that counsel would be in violation of DR 6-101 (A)(2) and 7-101(A)(3), the court may commit error under the circumstances of the particular case in finding defense counsel in contempt and in *Page 8 imposing a fine." In re Sherlock , supra, at paragraph two of the syllabus. 1990In In Re Sherlock (1987), 37 Ohio App. 3d 204 , the court held in the second paragraph of the syllabus that a trial court may commit error in finding contempt when it "denies a continuance in a criminal trial and, as a consequence, defense counsel refuses to participate in the trial for fear that the defendant would receive ineffective assistance of counsel". | 3 | 1990–2008 |
Eisenberg v. Peyton
green
2 sentences2006There, the court stated: “Although the trial court may commit error by not fully complying with the procedural requirements of Civil Rule 53, that failure does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear and determine the action.” Id. at 148 , 10 O.O.3d 158 , 381 N.E.2d 1136 . 2006There, the court stated: “Although the trial court may commit error by not fully complying with the procedural requirements of Civil Rule 53, that failure does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear and determine the action.” Id. at 148 , 10 O.O.3d 158 , 381 N.E.2d 1136 . | 2 | 2006–2015 |
State v. Kilbane
green
1 sentence2008Id., citing Kilbane." (Parallel citations omitted.) {¶ 24} "Where a trial court denies a continuance in a criminal trial and, as a consequence, defense counsel refuses to participate in the trial for fear that the defendant would receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that counsel would be in violation of DR 6-101 (A)(2) and 7-101(A)(3), the court may commit error under the circumstances of the particular case in finding defense counsel in contempt and in *Page 8 imposing a fine." In re Sherlock , supra, at paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hines v. Amole
green
2 sentences1988In Hines v. Amole (1982), 4 Ohio App. 3d 263, 265 , 4 OBR 480, 483, 448 N.E. 2d 473, 476 , the Court of Appeals for Greene County held: “Although the trial court may commit error by not fully complying with the procedural requirements of Civ. 1988In Hines v. Amole (1982), 4 Ohio App. 3d 263, 265 , 4 OBR 480, 483, 448 N.E. 2d 473, 476 , the Court of Appeals for Greene County held: “Although the trial court may commit error by not fully complying with the procedural requirements of Civ. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Tari v. State
green
1 sentence1978It is as though such proceedings had never occurred; the judgment is a mere nullity.” (Tari v. State [1927], 117 Ohio St. 481, 498 .) Although the trial court may commit error by not fully complying with the procedural requirements of Civil Rule 53, that failure does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear and determine the action. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.