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 1837–2020 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. Overholtgreen2 sentences2007State v. Ebersole (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 288 , 293 , citing State v. Overholt (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 111 , 115 . 2001See, e.g., State v. Overholt (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 111, 115 , 601 N.E.2d 116, 118 (holding that the appellant’s handwritten request to represent and defend himself was sufficient to waive counsel in a serious offense case). | 2 | 3 |
Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc.green2 sentences2011Theatre Corp. at 268. {¶ 29} In Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc. (C.A.2, 1976), 528 F.2d 1384, 1387 , which is quoted extensively in Sarbey , the court held that a lawyer’s duty to his client is that of a fiduciary or trustee, who owes his client “undivided loyalty.” Cinema 5 rejected the “substantial relationship” test generally applied in determining whether a lawyer may accept employment against a former client, and held that “[w]here the relationship is a continuing one, adverse representation is prima facie improper.” Id. at 1386-1387. 2011Theatre Corp. at 268. {¶ 29} In Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc. (C.A.2, 1976), 528 F.2d 1384, 1387 , which is quoted extensively in Sarbey , the court held that a lawyer’s duty to his client is that of a fiduciary or trustee, who owes his client “undivided loyalty.” Cinema 5 rejected the “substantial relationship” test generally applied in determining whether a lawyer may accept employment against a former client, and held that “[w]here the relationship is a continuing one, adverse representation is prima facie improper.” Id. at 1386-1387. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
T. C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Only in this manner can the lawyer’s duty of absolute fidelity be enforced and the spirit of the rule relating to privileged communications be maintained.” Id., quoting T.C. 1990Only in this manner can the lawyer's duty of absolute fidelity be enforced and the spirit of the rule relating to privileged communications be maintained." Id. | 2 | 1990–2011 |
State v. Retana
neutral
1 sentence2020(Walls at ¶ 35, recognizing that in State v. Retana, 12th Dist. No. CA2011-12-225, 2012-Ohio-5608, ¶ 49 , the state did not provide the defense a "written report" from its expert, but six months before trial, it provided the defense with a transcript of the expert's testimony in a companion case, specifically articulating the expert's opinions.) {¶ 33} Further, in State v. Hall, 1st Dist. No. C-170699, 2019-Ohio-2985 , the appellate court found that two interrelated errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Hall
green
1 sentence2020(Walls at ¶ 35, recognizing that in State v. Retana, 12th Dist. No. CA2011-12-225, 2012-Ohio-5608, ¶ 49 , the state did not provide the defense a "written report" from its expert, but six months before trial, it provided the defense with a transcript of the expert's testimony in a companion case, specifically articulating the expert's opinions.) {¶ 33} Further, in State v. Hall, 1st Dist. No. C-170699, 2019-Ohio-2985 , the appellate court found that two interrelated errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Walls
green
1 sentence2020Pecek differs from this case because appellant sought to testify as an expert at the close of the prosecution's case and the prosecution's expert was unavailable to return during trial. {¶ 32} In State v. Walls, 6th Dist. No. E-16-027, 2018-Ohio-329 , the court determined Crim.R. 16(K) required the exclusion of expert testimony when the expert report was not provided unless compliance with the spirit of the rule has been achieved through other means. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
LaNeve v. Atlas Recycling, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018In Laneve, 119 Ohio St.3d 324 , 2008-Ohio-3921 , 894 N.E.2d 25 , at ¶ 14, for instance, plaintiff designated certain 13. defendants as “John Doe, unknown.” The court held that this designation failed to meet the specific requirements of Civ.R. 15(D). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Ebersole
green
1 sentence2007State v. Ebersole (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 288 , 293 , citing State v. Overholt (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 111 , 115 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Brooke
green
2 sentences2007In addition, in serious offense cases the waiver shall be in writing." {¶ 34} Criminal Rule 22 provides that "in petty offense cases all waivers of counsel required by Rule 44(B) shall be recorded." {¶ 35} "At the very least, then, any waiver of counsel must be made on the record in open court, and in cases involving serious offenses where the penalty includes confinement for more than six months, the waiver must also be in writing and filed with the court." State v. Brooke , 113 Ohio St.3d 199 , 863 N.E.2d 1024 , 2007-Ohio-1533 ¶ 24 . {¶ 36} Strict compliance with Crim.R. 44 is not necessary 2007In addition, in serious offense cases the waiver shall be in writing." {¶ 34} Criminal Rule 22 provides that "in petty offense cases all waivers of counsel required by Rule 44(B) shall be recorded." {¶ 35} "At the very least, then, any waiver of counsel must be made on the record in open court, and in cases involving serious offenses where the penalty includes confinement for more than six months, the waiver must also be in writing and filed with the court." State v. Brooke , 113 Ohio St.3d 199 , 863 N.E.2d 1024 , 2007-Ohio-1533 ¶ 24 . {¶ 36} Strict compliance with Crim.R. 44 is not necessary | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Fears v. Ney
green
1 sentence1999State v. Overholt (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 111, 115 , 601 N.E.2d 116, 118 (appellant’s “handwritten ‘request to represent myself and defend myself ” was determined sufficient to waive counsel in a serious offense case), appeal dismissed, (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 1500 , 583 N.E.2d 971 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Pierce
green
1 sentence1999State v. Overholt (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 111, 115 , 601 N.E.2d 116, 118 (appellant’s “handwritten ‘request to represent myself and defend myself ” was determined sufficient to waive counsel in a serious offense case), appeal dismissed, (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 1500 , 583 N.E.2d 971 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Thompson v. Davies
neutral
1 sentence1837The case of Thompson v. Davies, 13 Johns. 112 , is also cited. | 1 | 1837–1837 |
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.