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.
57 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 8 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. Beygreen2 sentences2008See State v. Bey (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 487, 502 , 709 N.E.2d 484 . 2008See State v. Bey (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 487, 502 , 709 N.E.2d 484 . | 2 | 2 |
Temple v. Wean United, Inc.green2 sentences2020See Temple, 50 Ohio St.2d at 327 . 9 {¶24} This Court has held that the elements necessary to establish a claim for promissory estoppel are “a promise, clear and unambiguous in its terms; reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; that the reliance was reasonable and foreseeable; and that the party claiming estoppel was injured by the reliance.” Rigby v. Fallsway Equip. 2014“Civ.R. 56(C) specifically provides that before summary judgment may be granted, it must be determined that: (1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party.” Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327 , 364 N.E.2d 267 (1977). {¶7} It is well established t | 1 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2020See State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 389 , 721 N.E.2d 52 (2000) (an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel challenge lacking in merit may be expediently disposed of by finding that the defendant failed to establish one of the Strickland prongs), citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . 2020See State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 389 , 721 N.E.2d 52 (2000) (an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel challenge lacking in merit may be expediently disposed of by finding that the defendant failed to establish one of the Strickland prongs), citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . | 1 | 2 |
State ex rel. Cordray v. Marshallgreen1 sentence2026Cordray v. Marshall, 2009-Ohio-4986, ¶ 27-28, 42 , in which it relied upon the law-of-the-case doctrine to hold that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant a posttrial motion that raised the same issues that had previously been rejected on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Underwoodgreen1 sentence2026See State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 28 (3d Dist.). {¶18} As to whether the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing on Davis’s motion to withdraw his plea, we note that “[o]ne risk of orally moving to withdraw the plea immediately after the sentence is imposed is that the oral motion will not contain sufficient allegations or cite to relevant evidence.” State v. Kopnitsky, 2019-Ohio-5066, ¶ 20 (7th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kopnitskygreen1 sentence2026See State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 28 (3d Dist.). {¶18} As to whether the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing on Davis’s motion to withdraw his plea, we note that “[o]ne risk of orally moving to withdraw the plea immediately after the sentence is imposed is that the oral motion will not contain sufficient allegations or cite to relevant evidence.” State v. Kopnitsky, 2019-Ohio-5066, ¶ 20 (7th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lozagreen1 sentence2025We conclude, however, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis' motion for a mistrial. {¶ 30} As to the prison references in the jail phone call recordings, courts have - 10 - Fayette CA2024-03-004 CA2024-07-016 consistently held that "[c]urative instructions 'are presumed to be an effective way to remedy errors that occur during trial.'" State v. Tyree, 2017-Ohio-4228, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Trzeciak, 2015-Ohio-2219 , ¶ 24 (12th Dist.); see also State v. Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d 61, 79 (1994).4 {¶ 31} Davis argues the trial court's instruction to simply "disregard | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tyreegreen1 sentence2025We conclude, however, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis' motion for a mistrial. {¶ 30} As to the prison references in the jail phone call recordings, courts have - 10 - Fayette CA2024-03-004 CA2024-07-016 consistently held that "[c]urative instructions 'are presumed to be an effective way to remedy errors that occur during trial.'" State v. Tyree, 2017-Ohio-4228, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Trzeciak, 2015-Ohio-2219 , ¶ 24 (12th Dist.); see also State v. Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d 61, 79 (1994).4 {¶ 31} Davis argues the trial court's instruction to simply "disregard | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sparksgreen1 sentence2025Compare State v. Sparks, 2014-Ohio-1130, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.) (defendant was not associated in an enterprise that included three other individuals because all parties were acting in furtherance of their individual interests as - 19 - Fayette CA2024-03-004 CA2024-07-016 opposed to promoting a common purpose). {¶ 55} We conclude Davis' convictions for three counts of trafficking in drugs and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, meaning the evidence was also sufficient to sustain a conviction and withstand Davis' motion for acquittal. {¶ 56} | 1 | 1 |
State v. Elliottgreen1 sentence2024Id. at ¶ 7; State v. Elliott, 2021-Ohio-424, ¶ 18 (1st Dist.). {¶18} Before accepting Davis’s plea, the trial court made clear to her that it was not bound by the recommended one-year sentence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Madrigalgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 389 , 721 N.E.2d 52 (2000) (an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel challenge lacking in merit may be expediently disposed of by finding that the defendant failed to establish one of the Strickland prongs), citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . 2020See State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 389 , 721 N.E.2d 52 (2000) (an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel challenge lacking in merit may be expediently disposed of by finding that the defendant failed to establish one of the Strickland prongs), citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Greathouse, Unpublished Decision (6-25-2004)green | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greathousegreen2 sentences2019See Riddle at ¶ 34, and Greathouse, 158 Ohio App.3d 135 , 2004-Ohio-3402 , 814 N.E.2d 502, at ¶ 17 . {¶ 33} We conclude that the deficient statement of facts placed on the record by the State during the plea proceeding rendered Davis’s guilty plea to burglary “less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” See Riddle at ¶ 39-40. 2019See Riddle at ¶ 34, and Greathouse, 158 Ohio App.3d 135 , 2004-Ohio-3402 , 814 N.E.2d 502, at ¶ 17 . {¶ 33} We conclude that the deficient statement of facts placed on the record by the State during the plea proceeding rendered Davis’s guilty plea to burglary “less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” See Riddle at ¶ 39-40. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Reynoldsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harris v. Alabamagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Proffitt v. Floridagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bezakred | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bloomergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Caldwellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morgan v. Illinoisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jonesgreen | 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 ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges
green
2 sentences2011As stated earlier, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, citing Special Prosecutors, 55 Ohio St.2d 94, 9 O.O.3d 88 , 378 N.E.2d 162 , held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act on Davis’s motion for a new trial. {¶ 24} Crim.R. 33(B) sets forth the grounds on which the trial court may grant a motion for a new trial. 2011As stated earlier, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, citing Special Prosecutors, 55 Ohio St.2d 94, 9 O.O.3d 88 , 378 N.E.2d 162 , held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act on Davis’s motion for a new trial. {¶ 24} Crim.R. 33(B) sets forth the grounds on which the trial court may grant a motion for a new trial. | 2 | 2011–2026 |
Davis v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006Id., — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. at 2277 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 . {¶ 16} When subjected to the Davis test, Bair’s statement is clearly nontestimonial. 2006Id., — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. at 2277 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 . {¶ 16} When subjected to the Davis test, Bair’s statement is clearly nontestimonial. | 2 | 2006–2024 |
State v. Jenkins
green
2 sentences2008State v. Carter (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 593, 607 , 734 N.E.2d 345 ; State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164 , 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 383} We also reject Davis’s claim that Ohio’s death-penalty statutes violate international law and treaties to which the United States is a party. 2008State v. Carter (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 593, 607 , 734 N.E.2d 345 ; State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164 , 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 383} We also reject Davis’s claim that Ohio’s death-penalty statutes violate international law and treaties to which the United States is a party. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Carter
green
2 sentences2008State v. Carter (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 593, 607 , 734 N.E.2d 345 ; State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164 , 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 383} We also reject Davis’s claim that Ohio’s death-penalty statutes violate international law and treaties to which the United States is a party. 2008State v. Carter (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 593, 607 , 734 N.E.2d 345 ; State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164 , 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 383} We also reject Davis’s claim that Ohio’s death-penalty statutes violate international law and treaties to which the United States is a party. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
H.B. Hunt and Lola N. Hunt v. Inter-Globe Energy, Inc., John A. Corrente, Forest N. Simon, Third-Party Glenda Perry Simon, Third-Party
green
2 sentences1997In Hunt v. Inter-Globe Energy, Inc. (C.A.10, 1985), 770 F.2d 145, 148 , the court held that a default judgment entered against one of several defendants, each of whom is jointly and severally liable for plaintiff’s damages, establishes only liability and not the defaulting defendant’s relative share of fault. 1997In Hunt v. Inter-Globe Energy, Inc. (C.A.10, 1985), 770 F.2d 145, 148 , the court held that a default judgment entered against one of several defendants, each of whom is jointly and severally liable for plaintiffs damages, establishes only liability and not the defaulting defendant’s relative share of fault. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Hughes
green
1 sentence2025Id. {¶ 19} 8. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Lamont B. Nelson and Delano C. Nelson
green
1 sentence2024“Under those circumstances, the extent of cross-examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Id. {¶24} Here, as shown above, the jury heard details of Davis’ plea agreement, including the offenses he was pleading to, his understanding of the sentence he would receive in exchange for cooperating, and his obligation to testify whenever called upon by the State. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
New York v. Quarles
green
2 sentences2022The trial court also concluded that the public safety exception to the Miranda rule announced in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), applied to Officer Short’s pre-Miranda questioning about whether Davis had a weapon nearby and the location of the weapon. -8- {¶ 17} After the trial court overruled Davis’s motion to suppress, Davis pled no contest to having weapons while under disability. 2022The trial court also concluded that the public safety exception to the Miranda rule announced in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), applied to Officer Short’s pre-Miranda questioning about whether Davis had a weapon nearby and the location of the weapon. -8- {¶ 17} After the trial court overruled Davis’s motion to suppress, Davis pled no contest to having weapons while under disability. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Luther
green
1 sentence2022Montgomery No. 28908, 2021-Ohio-2697, ¶ 20 . {¶ 53} In this case, Davis’s motion to suppress did not specifically argue that the officers’ warrantless search of the nightstand warranted the suppression of the gun discovered therein. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2022Those issues where: (1) that the officers’ entry into his hotel room was an unlawful, warrantless entry because the officers had not confirmed the arrest warrant before entering; and (2) that the officers conducted a custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), for which the public safety exception did not apply. {¶ 16} On July 15, 2021, the trial court announced that it was overruling Davis’s motion to suppress and stated its reasoning for that decision on the record. 2022Those issues where: (1) that the officers’ entry into his hotel room was an unlawful, warrantless entry because the officers had not confirmed the arrest warrant before entering; and (2) that the officers conducted a custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), for which the public safety exception did not apply. {¶ 16} On July 15, 2021, the trial court announced that it was overruling Davis’s motion to suppress and stated its reasoning for that decision on the record. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
United States v. Leon
green
1 sentence2020(State's Brief, 49.) However, we have interpreted No. 19AP-372 11 that an exception to the exclusionary rule as enunciated in [United States v.] Leon [ 468 U.S. 897 (1984)] and recognized in Davis is that, error for applying the exception to the rule " 'rests with the issuing magistrate, not the police officer, and "punish[ing] the errors of judges" is not the office of the exclusionary rule.' " State v. Thomas, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Davis v. Sheldon
green
1 sentence2020On July 24, 2019, we denied Davis’s motion for a stay. 156 Ohio St.3d 1470 , 2019-Ohio-2953 , 126 N.E.3d 1185 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Chandler
green
1 sentence2020Because the court of appeals did not apply the correct analysis to Davis’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, I concur. _________________ 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO KENNEDY, J., dissenting. {¶ 23} This court accepted this case based on a certified conflict that presents the following question: “ ‘Is trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to waive court costs at sentencing ineffective assistance of counsel when defendant has previously been found indigent?’ ” 152 Ohio St.3d 1441 , 2018-Ohio-1600 , 96 N.E.3d 297 , quoting 5th Dist. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2020Because the court of appeals did not apply the correct analysis to Davis’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, I concur. _________________ 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO KENNEDY, J., dissenting. {¶ 23} This court accepted this case based on a certified conflict that presents the following question: “ ‘Is trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to waive court costs at sentencing ineffective assistance of counsel when defendant has previously been found indigent?’ ” 152 Ohio St.3d 1441 , 2018-Ohio-1600 , 96 N.E.3d 297 , quoting 5th Dist. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State ex rel. Robinson v. Adult Parole Auth.
green
1 sentence2020Because the court of appeals did not apply the correct analysis to Davis’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, I concur. _________________ 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO KENNEDY, J., dissenting. {¶ 23} This court accepted this case based on a certified conflict that presents the following question: “ ‘Is trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to waive court costs at sentencing ineffective assistance of counsel when defendant has previously been found indigent?’ ” 152 Ohio St.3d 1441 , 2018-Ohio-1600 , 96 N.E.3d 297 , quoting 5th Dist. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State ex rel. Jones v. Hamilton Cnty. Court of Common Pleas
neutral
1 sentence2020On July 24, 2019, we denied Davis’s motion for a stay. 156 Ohio St.3d 1470 , 2019-Ohio-2953 , 126 N.E.3d 1185 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re T.S.
green
1 sentence2020On July 24, 2019, we denied Davis’s motion for a stay. 156 Ohio St.3d 1470 , 2019-Ohio-2953 , 126 N.E.3d 1185 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. George
green
1 sentence2020Wayne No. 13CA0036, 2014-Ohio-4123, ¶ 7 , quoting R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Lucero neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Dunbar v. State green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In Re Frank green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Durham green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Seventh Urban, Inc. v. University Circle Property Development, Inc. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Moore v. Moore green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Layman v. Woo green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Herring v. United States green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State ex rel. Matz v. Brown green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Brown v. Akron Beacon Journal Publishing Co. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Spaziano v. Florida red | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Ficklin green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Patel, 24024 (9-17-2008) green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Hanna green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Davis green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Engle green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Hanna green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Sarkozy green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Yarbrough green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Yarbrough green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.