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 1993–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 329547green2 sentences1993Id. at 365-366. 1993Id. at 365-366. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Robertsongreen1 sentence1999Staff Note Evid.R. 404(B); see, also, State v. Robinson (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 715 , at 729. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martensgreen2 sentences1995In dissent Judge Gorman notes that the instructions in this case “were simply a recitation of the defense of self-defense from Ohio Jury Instructions upon which every trial judge relies.” In State v. Burchfield (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 261 , 611 N.E.2d 819 , Justice Pfeiffer, writing for a unanimous court, in taking issue with a particular instruction from OJI, noted that “while OJI is widely used in this state its language should not be blindly applied in all cases.” Accord State v. Martens (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 338, 343 , 629 N.E.2d 462, 465 (“The instructions found in [OJI] are not mandatory. 1995In dissent Judge Gorman notes that the instructions in this case “were simply a recitation of the defense of self-defense from Ohio Jury Instructions upon which every trial judge relies.” In State v. Burchfield (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 261 , 611 N.E.2d 819 , Justice Pfeiffer, writing for a unanimous court, in taking issue with a particular instruction from OJI, noted that “while OJI is widely used in this state its language should not be blindly applied in all cases.” Accord State v. Martens (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 338, 343 , 629 N.E.2d 462, 465 (“The instructions found in [OJI] are not mandatory. | 1 | 1 |
Kurzner v. Sandersgreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., Kurzner v. Sanders (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 674, 679 , 627 N.E.2d 564, 567 . 1995See, e.g., Kurzner v. Sanders (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 674, 679 , 627 N.E.2d 564, 567 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024It consists of a reference to “foregoing [deposition] testimony” that was “elected by Defendants’ counsel on cross-examination,” a brief criticism of the “self-serving” affidavits and salary spreadsheet appellees submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment, a reference to documents allegedly supporting her view of the case that Montgomery claims were requested in discovery but not produced by appellees and a recitation of the standard for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56(C). matter directly or indirectly related to employment.” R.C. 4112.02(A)’s prohibition of sexual discriminati | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Pinkerman
green
2 sentences2013State v. Pinkerman, 88 Ohio App.3d 158, 160 , 623 N.E.2d 643 (4th Dist. 1993)State v. Clumm, 4th Dist. 2013State v. Pinkerman, 88 Ohio App.3d 158, 160 , 623 N.E.2d 643 (4th Dist. 1993)State v. Clumm, 4th Dist. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
MedCorp, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Job & Family Services
green
2 sentences2011Medcorp, 121 Ohio St.3d 622 , 2009-Ohio-2058 , 906 N.E.2d 1125 , ¶ 1-9. 2011Medcorp, 121 Ohio St.3d 622 , 2009-Ohio-2058 , 906 N.E.2d 1125 , ¶ 1-9. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Flonnory
green
2 sentences2002"Where evidence has been admitted for a limited purpose which the state claims shows the defendant did certain `other acts' which show the motive or intent of the accused, the absence of mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant's scheme plan or system in doing the act in question which is alleged in the indictment, the jury should be instructed that such evidence must not be considered by them as any proof whatsoever that the accused did any act alleged in the indictment." State v. Flonnory (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 124 , 129 , 285 N.E.2d 726 . ¶ 32 "To be effective, a limiting instructio 2002"Where evidence has been admitted for a limited purpose which the state claims shows the defendant did certain `other acts' which show the motive or intent of the accused, the absence of mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant's scheme plan or system in doing the act in question which is alleged in the indictment, the jury should be instructed that such evidence must not be considered by them as any proof whatsoever that the accused did any act alleged in the indictment." State v. Flonnory (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 124 , 129 , 285 N.E.2d 726 . ¶ 32 "To be effective, a limiting instructio | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Burchfield
green
2 sentences1995In dissent Judge Gorman notes that the instructions in this case “were simply a recitation of the defense of self-defense from Ohio Jury Instructions upon which every trial judge relies.” In State v. Burchfield (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 261 , 611 N.E.2d 819 , Justice Pfeiffer, writing for a unanimous court, in taking issue with a particular instruction from OJI, noted that “while OJI is widely used in this state its language should not be blindly applied in all cases.” Accord State v. Martens (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 338, 343 , 629 N.E.2d 462, 465 (“The instructions found in [OJI] are not mandatory. 1995In dissent Judge Gorman notes that the instructions in this case “were simply a recitation of the defense of self-defense from Ohio Jury Instructions upon which every trial judge relies.” In State v. Burchfield (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 261 , 611 N.E.2d 819 , Justice Pfeiffer, writing for a unanimous court, in taking issue with a particular instruction from OJI, noted that “while OJI is widely used in this state its language should not be blindly applied in all cases.” Accord State v. Martens (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 338, 343 , 629 N.E.2d 462, 465 (“The instructions found in [OJI] are not mandatory. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.