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 3 courts 2000–2025 2 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. Braden (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2025We note, however, that “R.C. 2947.23(C) specifically says that the trial court ‘retains jurisdiction’ to waive court costs ‘at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter.’ To that end, the statute specifically provides an exception to res judicata when a defendant did not request waiver at sentencing or challenge his court costs on direct appeal.” State v. Braden, 2019-Ohio-4204, ¶ 23 . 2023But now R.C. 2947.23(C) states that a “trial court ‘retains jurisdiction’ to waive court costs ‘at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter.’ To that end, the statute specifically provides an exception to res judicata when a defendant did not request waiver at sentencing or challenge his court costs on direct appeal.” State v. Braden, 158 Ohio St. 3d 462 , 2019-Ohio-4204 , 145 N.E.3d 235 , ¶ 23. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence2023“Thus, the timing of a motion to seek waiver of costs is a matter of trial strategy.” State v. Phillips, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 20CA3905, 2022-Ohio-478, ¶ 15, fn. 2 ; State v. Farnese, 4th Dist. Washington No. 15CA11, 2015-Ohio-3533 , ¶ 15-16; State v. Purifoy, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28042, 2019-Ohio-2942, ¶ 28 ; Eblin at ¶ 16; State v. Pultz, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-14-083, 2016-Ohio-329, ¶ 61 ; State v. Mihalis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104308, 2016-Ohio-8056 , ¶ 33. {¶23} More recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed a conflict-of- law question between the Fifth and Eighth District Courts o | 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 v. Davis (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2023“Thus, the timing of a motion to seek waiver of costs is a matter of trial strategy.” State v. Phillips, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 20CA3905, 2022-Ohio-478, ¶ 15, fn. 2 ; State v. Farnese, 4th Dist. Washington No. 15CA11, 2015-Ohio-3533 , ¶ 15-16; State v. Purifoy, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28042, 2019-Ohio-2942, ¶ 28 ; Eblin at ¶ 16; State v. Pultz, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-14-083, 2016-Ohio-329, ¶ 61 ; State v. Mihalis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104308, 2016-Ohio-8056 , ¶ 33. {¶23} More recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed a conflict-of- law question between the Fifth and Eighth District Courts o 2023“Thus, the timing of a motion to seek waiver of costs is a matter of trial strategy.” State v. Phillips, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 20CA3905, 2022-Ohio-478, ¶ 15, fn. 2 ; State v. Farnese, 4th Dist. Washington No. 15CA11, 2015-Ohio-3533 , ¶ 15-16; State v. Purifoy, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28042, 2019-Ohio-2942, ¶ 28 ; Eblin at ¶ 16; State v. Pultz, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-14-083, 2016-Ohio-329, ¶ 61 ; State v. Mihalis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104308, 2016-Ohio-8056 , ¶ 33. {¶23} More recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed a conflict-of- law question between the Fifth and Eighth District Courts o | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Purifoy
neutral
1 sentence2023“Thus, the timing of a motion to seek waiver of costs is a matter of trial strategy.” State v. Phillips, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 20CA3905, 2022-Ohio-478, ¶ 15, fn. 2 ; State v. Farnese, 4th Dist. Washington No. 15CA11, 2015-Ohio-3533 , ¶ 15-16; State v. Purifoy, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28042, 2019-Ohio-2942, ¶ 28 ; Eblin at ¶ 16; State v. Pultz, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-14-083, 2016-Ohio-329, ¶ 61 ; State v. Mihalis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104308, 2016-Ohio-8056 , ¶ 33. {¶23} More recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed a conflict-of- law question between the Fifth and Eighth District Courts o | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Pultz
green
1 sentence2023“Thus, the timing of a motion to seek waiver of costs is a matter of trial strategy.” State v. Phillips, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 20CA3905, 2022-Ohio-478, ¶ 15, fn. 2 ; State v. Farnese, 4th Dist. Washington No. 15CA11, 2015-Ohio-3533 , ¶ 15-16; State v. Purifoy, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28042, 2019-Ohio-2942, ¶ 28 ; Eblin at ¶ 16; State v. Pultz, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-14-083, 2016-Ohio-329, ¶ 61 ; State v. Mihalis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104308, 2016-Ohio-8056 , ¶ 33. {¶23} More recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed a conflict-of- law question between the Fifth and Eighth District Courts o | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Embassy Healthcare v. Bell (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2020The Supreme Court of Ohio recently addressed this issue in Embassy Healthcare v. Bell, 155 Ohio St.3d 430 , 2018-Ohio-4912 , 122 N.E.3d 117 . 2020The Supreme Court of Ohio recently addressed this issue in Embassy Healthcare v. Bell, 155 Ohio St.3d 430 , 2018-Ohio-4912 , 122 N.E.3d 117 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Banks
green
1 sentence2019Franklin No. 17AP-210, 2017-Ohio-7135, ¶ 10 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Braden
green
1 sentence2019R.C. 2947.23(C) specifically says that the trial court “retains jurisdiction” to waive court costs “at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter.” To that end, the statute specifically provides an exception to res judicata when a defendant did not request waiver at sentencing or challenge his court costs on direct appeal. {¶ 24} The Tenth District below and the state have relied heavily on the General Assembly’s use of the word “retains.” See 2017-Ohio-7903 at ¶ 8 , citing State v. Banks, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Strohofer v. City of Cincinnati
green
2 sentences2001Strohofer, supra, 6 Ohio St.3d 118 , abolished municipal sovereign immunity in all actions for damages alleged to be caused by the tortious conduct of the municipality, unless a statute specifically provided immunity. 2001Strohofer, supra, 6 Ohio St.3d 118 , abolished municipal sovereign immunity in all actions for damages alleged to be caused by the tortious conduct of the municipality, unless a statute specifically provided immunity. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Johnson's Island, Inc. v. Board of Township Trustees
green
1 sentence2000Trustees (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 241, 245-246 , 23 O.O.3d 243 , 246, 431 N.E.2d 672 , 675, the Ohio Supreme Court reiterated this aspect of the doctrine: “Decisions of this court, and of other jurisdictions, have established that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to defenses which, although not raised, could have been raised in the prior action. * * * This principle accommodates the finality of judgments.” Although it is arguable in this case that the father could have litigated his parentage in the January 23, 1996 child support hearing under R.C. 2151.231, triggering the application o | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.