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 1970–2020 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. Atallagreen2 sentences2020“The scope of the inquiry will not be confined strictly to the subjects which constitute grounds for the sustaining of a challenge for cause; but if it extends beyond such subjects it must be conducted in good faith with the object of obtaining a fair and impartial jury and must not go so far beyond the parties and the issues directly involved that it is likely to create a bias, a prejudice, or an unfair attitude toward any litigant.” 4 State v. Atalla, 157 Ohio App.3d 698 , 2004-Ohio-3414, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.), quoting Vega v. Evans, 128 Ohio St. 535 (1934), at paragraph two of the syllabus. 2020“The scope of the inquiry will not be confined strictly to the subjects which constitute grounds for the sustaining of a challenge for cause; but if it extends beyond such subjects it must be conducted in good faith with the object of obtaining a fair and impartial jury and must not go so far beyond the parties and the issues directly involved that it is likely to create a bias, a prejudice, or an unfair attitude toward any litigant.” 4 State v. Atalla, 157 Ohio App.3d 698 , 2004-Ohio-3414, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.), quoting Vega v. Evans, 128 Ohio St. 535 (1934), at paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bedfordgreen1 sentence2020“The scope of voir dire * * * varies depending on the circumstances of each case.” State v. Bedford, 39 Ohio St.3d 122, 129 (1988). {¶10} When conducting her voir dire, the prosecutor discussed with the jury venire the concepts of reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vega, Admr. v. Evans
green
2 sentences2020“The scope of the inquiry will not be confined strictly to the subjects which constitute grounds for the sustaining of a challenge for cause; but if it extends beyond such subjects it must be conducted in good faith with the object of obtaining a fair and impartial jury and must not go so far beyond the parties and the issues directly involved that it is likely to create a bias, a prejudice, or an unfair attitude toward any litigant.” 4 State v. Atalla, 157 Ohio App.3d 698 , 2004-Ohio-3414, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.), quoting Vega v. Evans, 128 Ohio St. 535 (1934), at paragraph two of the syllabus. 2004Krupp v. Poor (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 123, 126 , 53 O.O.2d 320 , 265 N.E.2d 268 . {¶ 11} The Ohio Supreme Court has further explained: “The scope of the inquiry will not be confined strictly to the subjects which constitute grounds for the sustaining of a challenge for cause; but if it extends beyond such subjects it must be conducted in good faith with the object of obtaining a fair and impartial jury and must not go so far beyond the parties and the issues directly involved that it is likely to create a bias, a prejudice, or *702 an unfair attitude toward any litigant.” Vega v. Evans, 128 Ohio | 5 | 1970–2020 |
Dowd-Feder, Inc. v. Truesdell
green
2 sentences2008That is a matter wholly for the trial court to determine in the exercise of its sound discretion and in the light of all the facts and surrounding circumstances.' Dowd-Feder, Inc. v. Truesdell (1936), 130 Ohio St. at 535 . {¶ 88} "`Much rests in the discretion of the court as to what questions may or may not be answered, but in practice very great latitude is, and generally ought to be indulged.' Id. at 533 . 2008That is a matter wholly for the trial court to determine in the exercise of its sound discretion and in the light of all the facts and surrounding circumstances.' Dowd-Feder, Inc. v. Truesdell (1936), 130 Ohio St. at 535 . {¶ 88} "`Much rests in the discretion of the court as to what questions may or may not be answered, but in practice very great latitude is, and generally ought to be indulged.' Id. at 533 . | 3 | 1970–2008 |
Krupp v. Poor
green
2 sentences2008Krupp v. Poor (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 123 , 125 , 265 N.E.2d 268 . {¶ 86} "`The scope of the inquiry will not be confined strictly to the subjects which constitute grounds for the sustaining of a challenge for cause; but if it extends beyond such subjects it must be conducted in good faith with the object of obtaining a fair and impartial jury and must not go so far beyond the parties and the issues directly involved that it is likely to create a bias, a prejudice, or an unfair attitude toward any litigant.' Vega v. Evans , supra, at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 87} "`It is neither wise nor 2008Krupp v. Poor (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 123 , 125 , 265 N.E.2d 268 . {¶ 86} "`The scope of the inquiry will not be confined strictly to the subjects which constitute grounds for the sustaining of a challenge for cause; but if it extends beyond such subjects it must be conducted in good faith with the object of obtaining a fair and impartial jury and must not go so far beyond the parties and the issues directly involved that it is likely to create a bias, a prejudice, or an unfair attitude toward any litigant.' Vega v. Evans , supra, at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 87} "`It is neither wise nor | 2 | 2004–2008 |
Blakemore v. Blakemore
green
2 sentences2005Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . {¶ 17} In the case sub judice, no specific acts were elicited from witness Parks due to the trial court sustaining defense counsel's objections to the prosecution's questions. 2005Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . {¶ 17} In the case sub judice, no specific acts were elicited from witness Parks due to the trial court sustaining defense counsel's objections to the prosecution's questions. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Pavilonis v. Valentine
green
1 sentence2004The inquiry should not be limited only to those subjects which constitute grounds for the sustaining of a challenge for cause; but, if the questioning extends beyond such subjects, it must be conducted in good faith with the goal of obtaining a fair and impartial jury and "must not go so far beyond the parties and the issues directly involved that it is likely to create a bias, a prejudice, or an unfair attitude toward any litigant." Id., citing Vega v. Evans (1934), 128 Ohio St. 535 , paragraph two of the syllabus, 191 N.E. 757 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2004State v. Jones (1984), 20 Ohio App.3d 331, 332 , 20 OBR 434, 486 N.E.2d 179 (holding that race, ethnicity, and religious biases may be proper subjects of voir dire). {¶ 13} “Much rests in the discretion of the court as to what questions may or may not be answered, but in practice very great latitude is, and generally ought to be indulged.” Dowd-Feder, Inc. v. Truesdell (1936), 130 Ohio St. 530, 533 , 5 O.O. 179 , 200 N.E. 762 . 2004State v. Jones (1984), 20 Ohio App.3d 331, 332 , 20 OBR 434, 486 N.E.2d 179 (holding that race, ethnicity, and religious biases may be proper subjects of voir dire). {¶ 13} “Much rests in the discretion of the court as to what questions may or may not be answered, but in practice very great latitude is, and generally ought to be indulged.” Dowd-Feder, Inc. v. Truesdell (1936), 130 Ohio St. 530, 533 , 5 O.O. 179 , 200 N.E. 762 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Lott
green
2 sentences1999State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160 , 555 N.E.2d 293 , certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 1017 , 111 S.Ct. 591 ; State v. Hart (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 665 , 641 N.E.2d 755 . 1999State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160 , 555 N.E.2d 293 , certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 1017 , 111 S.Ct. 591 ; State v. Hart (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 665 , 641 N.E.2d 755 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Munters Corp. v. Matsui America, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160 , 555 N.E.2d 293 , certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 1017 , 111 S.Ct. 591 ; State v. Hart (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 665 , 641 N.E.2d 755 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Martinez v. United States
green
1 sentence1999State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160 , 555 N.E.2d 293 , certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 1017 , 111 S.Ct. 591 ; State v. Hart (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 665 , 641 N.E.2d 755 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Hart
green
2 sentences1999State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160 , 555 N.E.2d 293 , certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 1017 , 111 S.Ct. 591 ; State v. Hart (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 665 , 641 N.E.2d 755 . 1999State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160 , 555 N.E.2d 293 , certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 1017 , 111 S.Ct. 591 ; State v. Hart (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 665 , 641 N.E.2d 755 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.