58 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2026 22 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State v. Robinson, Unpublished Decision (12-14-2006)green2 sentences2007State v. Bivens, Franklin App. No. 05AP-1270, 2006-Ohio-4340 , at ¶ 6 (noting that the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 is jurisdictional, leaving a trial court with no authority to adjudicate an untimely post-conviction relief petition unless the petitioner complies with R.C. 2953.23 [A][1]); see, also, State v. Robinson, Franklin App. No. 06AP-368, 2006-Ohio-6649 , at ¶ 9 . {¶ 9} Even if appellant could show that the United States Supreme Court has retroactively recognized a new federal or state right, R.C. 2953.23 (A)(1), by its express terms, precludes a common pleas court from enter 2007State v. Bivens , Franklin App. No. 05AP-1270, 2006-Ohio-4340 , at ¶ 6 (noting that the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 is jurisdictional, leaving a trial court with no authority to adjudicate an untimely postconviction relief petition unless the petitioner complies with R.C. 2953.23 [A][1]); see, also, State v. Robinson , Franklin App. No. 06AP-368, 2006-Ohio-6649 , at ¶ 9 . {¶ 10} Even if appellant could show that the United States Supreme Court has retroactively recognized a new federal or state right, R.C. 2953.23 (A)(1), by its express terms, precludes a common pleas court from ent | 4 | 4 |
State v. Wilson, Unpublished Decision (6-1-2006)green2 sentences2007Thus, appellant's petition was not filed timely in accordance with R.C. 2953.21 , and did not establish grounds for untimely filing pursuant to R.C. 2953.23 . {¶ 11} The timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 is jurisdictional and "a trial court has no authority to entertain an untimely post-conviction relief petition unless the petitioner meets the requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)." State v. Wilson , Franklin App. No. 05AP-939, 2006-Ohio-2750 , at ¶ 16 , citing State v. Raines , Franklin App. No. 03AP-1076, 2004-Ohio-2524 , at ¶ 12. 2006See State v. Graham , Franklin App. No. 05AP-588, 2006-Ohio-914 , at ¶ 10 , and cases cited therein. {¶ 14} The timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 is jurisdictional, and "a trial court has no authority to entertain an untimely post-conviction relief petition unless the petitioner meets the requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)." State v. Wilson , Franklin App. No. 05AP-939, 2006-Ohio-2750 , at ¶ 16 . | 2 | 5 |
State ex rel. Myers v. Meyersgreen2 sentences2026Myers v. Meyers, 2022-Ohio-1915, ¶ 72-73 (determining that because R.C. 143.43(B)(3) does not contain a timeliness requirement, the public office’s delay in providing the requester with an explanation for the denial of records requests did not by itself entitle requester to a statutory-damages award); State ex rel. 2023See Myers, 169 Ohio St.3d 536 , 2022-Ohio-1915 , 207 N.E.3d 579, at ¶ 73 (determining that because R.C. 149.43(B)(3) does not contain a timeliness requirement, “the city’s delay in providing [the requester] with an explanation for its denial does not by itself entitle [the requester] to an award of statutory damages”). {¶ 42} We deny statutory damages because Broadview Heights’s communications with Fluty’s counsel did not fall below the standard prescribed by the Public Records Act. 3. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2026See also Kennedy, 2024-Ohio-66, at ¶ 27 (8th Dist.) (“Because the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.23 is jurisdictional, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an untimely filed petition for 2 Here, as in Johnson, Jones does not claim that “the United States Supreme Court recognized a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to persons in the petitioner’s situation[.]” R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a). 2025“Because the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.23 is jurisdictional, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an untimely filed petition for postconviction relief that does not meet the exceptions set forth above.” Kennedy, 2024-Ohio-66, at ¶ 27 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Barrow, 2020-Ohio-3719, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Kleyman, 2010-Ohio-3612 , ¶ 35 (8th Dist.). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Barrowgreen2 sentences2025“Because the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.23 is jurisdictional, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an untimely filed petition for postconviction relief that does not meet the exceptions set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).” Kennedy at ¶ 27 , citing State v. Barrow, 2020-Ohio-3719, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.); State v. Bethel, 2022-Ohio-783, ¶ 20 . {¶ 13} We review de novo whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain Scott’s petition for postconviction relief. 2025“Because the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.23 is jurisdictional, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an untimely filed petition for postconviction relief that does not meet the exceptions set forth above.” Kennedy, 2024-Ohio-66, at ¶ 27 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Barrow, 2020-Ohio-3719, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Kleyman, 2010-Ohio-3612 , ¶ 35 (8th Dist.). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Murnahanred2 sentences2024See State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 65 (1992), superseded by rule as stated in State v. Davis, 2008-Ohio-4608 . 2024See State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 , 65 (1992), superseded by rule as stated in State v. Davis, 2008-Ohio-4608 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Graham, Unpublished Decision (2-28-2006)green2 sentences2006See State v. Graham , Franklin App. No. 05AP-588, 2006-Ohio-914 , at ¶ 10 , and cases cited therein. {¶ 14} The timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 is jurisdictional, and "a trial court has no authority to entertain an untimely post-conviction relief petition unless the petitioner meets the requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)." State v. Wilson , Franklin App. No. 05AP-939, 2006-Ohio-2750 , at ¶ 16 . 2006See State v. Graham , Franklin App. No. 05AP-588, 2006-Ohio-914 , at ¶ 10 , and cases cited therein. {¶ 14} The timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 is jurisdictional, and "a trial court has no authority to entertain an untimely post-conviction relief petition unless the petitioner meets the requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)." State v. Wilson , Franklin App. No. 05AP-939, 2006-Ohio-2750 , at ¶ 16 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Banks, Unpublished Decision (8-15-2006)green2 sentences2006See, also, State v. Banks, Franklin App. No. 05AP-1062, 2006-Ohio-4225 , at ¶ 8 ; State v. Bivens , Franklin App. No. 05AP-1270, 2006-Ohio-4340 , at ¶ 6 . 2006See, also, State v. Banks , Franklin App. No. 05AP-1062, 2006-Ohio-4225 , at ¶ 8 ; State v. Bivens , Franklin App. No. 05AP-1270, 2006-Ohio-4340 , at ¶ 6 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2025Bethel at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Apanovitch, 2018-Ohio-4744, ¶ 36 . 2022See Apanovitch, 155 Ohio St.3d 358 , 2018-Ohio-4744 , 121 N.E.3d 351, at ¶ 24 . | 1 | 2 |
The Triax Company v. Trw, Inc.green2 sentences2018First New Shiloh Baptist Church v. Meagher , 82 Ohio St.3d 501 , [ 1998-Ohio-192 ], 696 N.E.2d 1058 (1998), this court laid out five factors for determining whether a motion to intervene is timely: "(1) the point to which the suit had progressed; (2) the purpose for which intervention is sought; (3) the length of time preceding the application during which the proposed intervenor knew or reasonably should have known of his interest in the case; (4) the prejudice to the original parties due to the proposed intervenor's failure after he knew or reasonably should have known of his interest in the 2018N.G. , 147 Ohio St.3d 432 , 2016-Ohio-1519 , 67 N.E.3d 728 , at ¶ 23, quoting Triax Co. , 724 F.2d 1224 . {¶ 43} When looking at the timeliness factors in this case, we agree with the *1017 appellants that their motion was not as untimely as the trial court indicated. | 1 | 2 |
State ex rel. Fluty v. Raiffgreen1 sentence2026Fluty v. Raiff, 2023-Ohio-3285, ¶ 41 (citing Myers in denying a statutory-damages award based on the requester’s claim that the public office took too long to inform her of its denial of records requests). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blackgreen1 sentence2026State v. Black, 2022-Ohio-3119, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.) (“Because Black’s petition was untimely and he failed to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition and did not err by denying it without an evidentiary hearing.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2026See Johnson at ¶ 10, fn. 2 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Atahiyagreen1 sentence2025“Because the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.23 is jurisdictional, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an untimely petition for postconviction relief unless the exceptions set forth under R.C. 2953.23 are satisfied.” State v. Atahiya, 2021-Ohio-1488, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
| PDK Laboratories Inc. v. United States Drug Enforcement Administrationgreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mortongreen1 sentence2023Cuyahoga No. 110946, 2022-Ohio-2358, ¶ 14 (”The timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 is jurisdictional.”); State v. Robinson, 8th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Meyer v. United Parcel Service, Inc.green2 sentences2023Meyer v. UPS, 122 Ohio St.3d 104 , 2009-Ohio- 2463, 909 N.E.2d 106, ¶ 53 (quoting PDK Laboratories Inc. v. United States DEA, 362 F.3d 786, 799 (2004) (Roberts J. concurring)). 2023Meyer v. UPS, 122 Ohio St.3d 104 , 2009-Ohio- 2463, 909 N.E.2d 106, ¶ 53 (quoting PDK Laboratories Inc. v. United States DEA, 362 F.3d 786, 799 (2004) (Roberts J. concurring)). | 1 | 1 |
| Ostanek v. Ostanekgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jones, Unpublished Decision (5-12-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Perrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Williamitis, Unpublished Decision (6-9-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re M.H., Unpublished Decision (6-9-2005)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Potts, Unpublished Decision (4-26-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| Cecilia R. v. Eddie M., Unpublished Decision (4-8-2005)green | 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. Bivens, Unpublished Decision (8-22-2006)
neutral
2 sentences2007State v. Bivens, Franklin App. No. 05AP-1270, 2006-Ohio-4340 , at ¶ 6 (noting that the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 is jurisdictional, leaving a trial court with no authority to adjudicate an untimely post-conviction relief petition unless the petitioner complies with R.C. 2953.23 [A][1]); see, also, State v. Robinson, Franklin App. No. 06AP-368, 2006-Ohio-6649 , at ¶ 9 . {¶ 9} Even if appellant could show that the United States Supreme Court has retroactively recognized a new federal or state right, R.C. 2953.23 (A)(1), by its express terms, precludes a common pleas court from enter 2007State v. Bivens , Franklin App. No. 05AP-1270, 2006-Ohio-4340 , at ¶ 6 (noting that the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 is jurisdictional, leaving a trial court with no authority to adjudicate an untimely postconviction relief petition unless the petitioner complies with R.C. 2953.23 [A][1]); see, also, State v. Robinson , Franklin App. No. 06AP-368, 2006-Ohio-6649 , at ¶ 9 . {¶ 10} Even if appellant could show that the United States Supreme Court has retroactively recognized a new federal or state right, R.C. 2953.23 (A)(1), by its express terms, precludes a common pleas court from ent | 8 | 2006–2007 |
State v. Connors, Unpublished Decision (5-27-2005)
green
2 sentences2007Searcy , at ¶ 8, citing State v. Connors, Hamilton App. No. C-040677, 2005-Ohio-2644 , at ¶ 4 . 2007Searcy , at ¶ 8 , citing State v. Connors , Hamilton App. No. C-040677, 2005-Ohio-2644 , at ¶ 4 . | 5 | 2006–2007 |
State v. Bush
green
2 sentences2003The following question is certified: “In considering a case involving delay in filing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to R.C. 2943.031, does the court have discretion to deny the motion by reading a timeliness requirement into R.C. 2943.031 (as the Ohio Supreme Court did in State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 , 2002-Ohio-3993 , regarding a Crim.R. 32.1 motion), or, is the trial court without discretion and therefore required to set aside the guilty plea and conviction as the court held in State v. Yuen?" F.E. 2003The Supreme Court of Ohio enunciated a timeliness standard in State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 , *360 2002-Ohio-3993 , 773 N.E.2d 522 , in motions pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1, because the rule specifies “manifest injustice” as the basis for granting a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty. | 3 | 2003–2004 |
State v. Bush
green
2 sentences2003The following question is certified: “In considering a case involving delay in filing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to R.C. 2943.031, does the court have discretion to deny the motion by reading a timeliness requirement into R.C. 2943.031 (as the Ohio Supreme Court did in State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 , 2002-Ohio-3993 , regarding a Crim.R. 32.1 motion), or, is the trial court without discretion and therefore required to set aside the guilty plea and conviction as the court held in State v. Yuen?" F.E. 2003The Supreme Court of Ohio enunciated a timeliness standard in State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 , *360 2002-Ohio-3993 , 773 N.E.2d 522 , in motions pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1, because the rule specifies “manifest injustice” as the basis for granting a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty. | 3 | 2003–2004 |
State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2023Ware v. Giavasis, 160 Ohio St.3d 383 , 2020-Ohio-3700, ¶ 12 . 2023Ware v. Giavasis, 160 Ohio St.3d 383 , 2020-Ohio-3700, ¶ 12 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Searcy, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2006)
green
2 sentences2008Williams , supra, citing State v. Searcy , Franklin App. No. 06AP-572, 2006-Ohio-6993 , at ¶ 7 (noting that the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 is jurisdictional, leaving a trial court with no authority to adjudicate an untimely petition for postconviction relief unless the petitioner complies with the exceptions in R.C. 2953.23 ). 2008Williams , supra, citing State v. Searcy , Franklin App. No. 06AP-572, 2006-Ohio-6993 , ¶ 7 (noting that the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 is jurisdictional, leaving a trial court with no authority to adjudicate an untimely petition for postconviction relief unless the petitioner complies with the exceptions in R.C. 2953.23 ). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Reynolds
green
2 sentences2002Citing our decision in State v. Reynolds (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 158 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 , the court of appeals majority reasoned that Reynolds’s “general syllabus language requires us to conclude that if a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is filed outside the time for a direct appeal and it alleges a constitutional violation as the basis for the request to vacate a conviction and sentence, the motion must be treated as one for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21.” The appellate court concluded that because Bush had failed to satisfy either the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 or the R 2002Citing our decision in State v. Reynolds (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 158 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 , the court of appeals majority reasoned that Reynolds’s “general syllabus language requires us to conclude that if a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is filed outside the time for a direct appeal and it alleges a constitutional violation as the basis for the request to vacate a conviction and sentence, the motion must be treated as one for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21.” The appellate court concluded that because Bush had failed to satisfy either the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 or the R | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Isreal v. Franklin Cty. Commrs.
green
1 sentence2025While that period “may stretch the outer limits of the ‘reasonable period of time’ in which to produce copies of reasonably identified records, . . . under the facts and circumstances in this case . . . [this requester] has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that [SOCF] violated the timeliness requirement of R.C. 149.43(B)(1) with respect to these records.” Isreal, 2021-Ohio-3824, ¶ 14 . {¶27} That is not changed by requester’s assertion that he did not actually receive the second installment of records until October because requester has not proven the factual basis for that assertion | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Bethel (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2025“Because the timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.23 is jurisdictional, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an untimely filed petition for postconviction relief that does not meet the exceptions set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).” Kennedy at ¶ 27 , citing State v. Barrow, 2020-Ohio-3719, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.); State v. Bethel, 2022-Ohio-783, ¶ 20 . {¶ 13} We review de novo whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain Scott’s petition for postconviction relief. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2024Id. {¶14} Having found the arguments raised herein to be without merit, the first and third assignments of error are overruled. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Isreal v. Franklin Cty. Commrs.
neutral
1 sentence2023No. 2019-00548PQ, 2019-Ohio-4603, ¶ 10 , adopted 2019-Ohio-5497 (McGrath, J.). {¶10} Multiple factors are relevant to a timeliness analysis. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2023The court found that, “[u]nlike R.C. 149.43(B)(1), which requires public records to be ‘promptly prepared’ and made available ‘within a reasonable period of time’ upon request, R.C. 149.43(B)(3) does not impose a timeliness requirement.” Id. quoting State ex rel. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State ex rel. Ware v. Kurt
green
1 sentence2023Ware v. Kurt, __ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-1627, ¶ 24-26 . {¶56} In Ware, the Court found that Ware, who was seeking public records, was not entitled to receive the documents under R.C. 149.43(B)(3), which does not impose a timeliness requirement. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ.
green
2 sentences2023Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2018-Ohio-5108 , 123 N.E.3d 887, ¶ 16 . {¶9} Multiple factors are relevant to a timeliness analysis. 2023Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2018-Ohio-5108 , 123 N.E.3d 887, ¶ 16 . {¶9} Multiple factors are relevant to a timeliness analysis. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State ex rel. Ware v. Kurt neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Ostanek v. Ostanek (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Wilson v. Wilson green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Patterson v. V & M Auto Body green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State ex rel. First New Shiloh Baptist Church v. Meagher neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State ex rel. N.G. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Div. (Slip Opinion) neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Elersic, 2006-G-2740 (6-29-2007) green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State ex rel. First New Shiloh Baptist Church v. Meagher green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Beaver green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Boston green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Taylor green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (3-8-2007) green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Crowder green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Gibson, Unpublished Decision (9-28-2005) green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Lewis v. Trimble green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Gregory v. Flowers green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm. neutral | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| East Ohio Gas Co. v. Walker green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Mount Olive Baptist Church v. Pipkins Paints & Home Improvement Center, Inc. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.