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 1982–2022 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. Williamsgreen2 sentences2017The attacks on appellant's veracity were also combined with application of the supposed doctrine of chances: "[I]f that case is legit, and I suggest to you that it is overwhelmingly, then they're all legit, because of the doctrine of chances and because everything that he's told you in this courtroom is a lie." (Tr. at 3770.) {¶ 88} "It is improper for an attorney to express his or her personal belief or opinion as to the credibility of a witness or as to the guilt of the accused." State v. Williams , 79 Ohio St.3d 1 , 12, 679 N.E.2d 646 (1997). 2017The attacks on appellant's veracity were also combined with application of the supposed doctrine of chances: "[I]f that case is legit, and I suggest to you that it is overwhelmingly, then they're all legit, because of the doctrine of chances and because everything that he's told you in this courtroom is a lie." (Tr. at 3770.) {¶ 88} "It is improper for an attorney to express his or her personal belief or opinion as to the credibility of a witness or as to the guilt of the accused." State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 12 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bradleygreen2 sentences2002See State v. Bradley , 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 , paragraph three of the syllabus; Middletown v. Allen (1989) 63 Ohio App.3d 443 , 579 N.E.2d 254 . 2002See State v. Bradley , 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 , paragraph three of the syllabus; Middletown v. Allen (1989) 63 Ohio App.3d 443 , 579 N.E.2d 254 . | 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. Williams
green
2 sentences2007State v. Williams , 51 Ohio St. 2d 112 , 116-117 (1977). {¶ 48} Defendant has suggested that, by allowing the testimony at issue, the trial court committed plain error. 1984Cf. State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St. 2d 112 [ 6 O.O.3d 334 ], paragraph one of the syllabus. | 2 | 1984–2007 |
State v. Leak (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2022Id. -7- Warren CA2022-02-005 {¶ 15} The trial court then set forth the "remedy" that should be afforded to Edwards' given this supposed violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Hughes
green
2 sentences2018But the supposed requirement is not actually in the statute. {¶ 50} “In construing a statute, we may not add or delete words.” State v. Hughes, 86 Ohio St.3d 424 , 427, 715 N.E.2d 540 (1999). 2018But the supposed requirement is not actually in the statute. {¶ 50} “In construing a statute, we may not add or delete words.” State v. Hughes, 86 Ohio St.3d 424 , 427, 715 N.E.2d 540 (1999). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
City of Middletown v. Allen
green
2 sentences2002See State v. Bradley , 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 , paragraph three of the syllabus; Middletown v. Allen (1989) 63 Ohio App.3d 443 , 579 N.E.2d 254 . 2002See State v. Bradley , 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 , paragraph three of the syllabus; Middletown v. Allen (1989) 63 Ohio App.3d 443 , 579 N.E.2d 254 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Graven
green
1 sentence1984Cf. State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St. 2d 112 [ 6 O.O.3d 334 ], paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Herman Franks, (Two Cases). United States of America v. Max Britton, (Two Cases). United States of America v. Boyce Mitchell
green
1 sentence1983The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that, given the “ ‘considerable area of discretion on the part of the trial judge in admitting or refusing to admit’ ” such evidence, “[i]f a scientific process is reliable, or sufficiently accurate, courts may also deem it ‘generally accepted.’ ” United States v. Franks (C.A. 6, 1975), 511 F. 2d 25, 33 , certiorari denied (1975), 422 U.S. 1042 , 1048. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Richter v. United States
green
1 sentence1983The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that, given the “ ‘considerable area of discretion on the part of the trial judge in admitting or refusing to admit’ ” such evidence, “[i]f a scientific process is reliable, or sufficiently accurate, courts may also deem it ‘generally accepted.’ ” United States v. Franks (C.A. 6, 1975), 511 F. 2d 25, 33 , certiorari denied (1975), 422 U.S. 1042 , 1048. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Walgraeve
green
2 sentences1982People v. Williams (1959), 6 N.Y. 2d 18 , 159 N.E. 2d 549 (expert opinion excluded as to credibility of narcotics addict); State v. Walgraeve (1966), 243 Ore. 328 , 413 P. 2d 609 (no requirement to appoint psychiatrist for examination of prosecutrix without such a showing); State v. Klueber (1965), 81 S.D. 223 , 132 N.W. 2d 847 (same). 1982People v. Williams (1959), 6 N.Y. 2d 18 , 159 N.E. 2d 549 (expert opinion excluded as to credibility of narcotics addict); State v. Walgraeve (1966), 243 Ore. 328 , 413 P. 2d 609 (no requirement to appoint psychiatrist for examination of prosecutrix without such a showing); State v. Klueber (1965), 81 S.D. 223 , 132 N.W. 2d 847 (same). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences1982People v. Williams (1959), 6 N.Y. 2d 18 , 159 N.E. 2d 549 (expert opinion excluded as to credibility of narcotics addict); State v. Walgraeve (1966), 243 Ore. 328 , 413 P. 2d 609 (no requirement to appoint psychiatrist for examination of prosecutrix without such a showing); State v. Klueber (1965), 81 S.D. 223 , 132 N.W. 2d 847 (same). 1982People v. Williams (1959), 6 N.Y. 2d 18 , 159 N.E. 2d 549 (expert opinion excluded as to credibility of narcotics addict); State v. Walgraeve (1966), 243 Ore. 328 , 413 P. 2d 609 (no requirement to appoint psychiatrist for examination of prosecutrix without such a showing); State v. Klueber (1965), 81 S.D. 223 , 132 N.W. 2d 847 (same). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Klueber
green
2 sentences1982People v. Williams (1959), 6 N.Y. 2d 18 , 159 N.E. 2d 549 (expert opinion excluded as to credibility of narcotics addict); State v. Walgraeve (1966), 243 Ore. 328 , 413 P. 2d 609 (no requirement to appoint psychiatrist for examination of prosecutrix without such a showing); State v. Klueber (1965), 81 S.D. 223 , 132 N.W. 2d 847 (same). 1982People v. Williams (1959), 6 N.Y. 2d 18 , 159 N.E. 2d 549 (expert opinion excluded as to credibility of narcotics addict); State v. Walgraeve (1966), 243 Ore. 328 , 413 P. 2d 609 (no requirement to appoint psychiatrist for examination of prosecutrix without such a showing); State v. Klueber (1965), 81 S.D. 223 , 132 N.W. 2d 847 (same). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.