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.
7 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2024 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. Gardnergreen2 sentences2007Rather, appellant contends that the trial court's exclusion of the evidence under the rape shield statute infringed upon his right of confrontation and the ability to present a defense. {¶ 21} Ohio courts recognize that "[t]he rape shield statute is not always applied literally, as in some instances, it might infringe upon a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses." State v. Brisco (Aug. 24, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76125, citing State v. Gardner (1979), 59 Ohio St.2d 14 , 16-17 . 2007See, also, In re Michael (1997), 119 Ohio App.3d 112 , 118 ("[application of the rape shield law may not * * * unduly infringe upon a defendant's constitutional rights"). {¶ 22} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that, in determining whether R.C. 2907.02 (D) is unconstitutional as applied, a balancing test must be employed, whereby a court "must thus balance the state interest which the statute is designed to protect against the probative value of the excluded evidence." Gardner , supra, at 17 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Michaelgreen1 sentence2007See, also, In re Michael (1997), 119 Ohio App.3d 112 , 118 ("[application of the rape shield law may not * * * unduly infringe upon a defendant's constitutional rights"). {¶ 22} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that, in determining whether R.C. 2907.02 (D) is unconstitutional as applied, a balancing test must be employed, whereby a court "must thus balance the state interest which the statute is designed to protect against the probative value of the excluded evidence." Gardner , supra, at 17 . | 1 | 1 |
Tibbs v. Floridagreen2 sentences2004Defendant further notes that even Doe's mother was not convinced that a crime had occurred, but she feared that the woman would be removed from her home if she did not pursue criminal charges. {¶ 57} In considering whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court "weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [factfinder] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial 2004Defendant further notes that even Doe's mother was not convinced that a crime had occurred, but she feared that the woman would be removed from her home if she did not pursue criminal charges. {¶ 57} In considering whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court "weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [factfinder] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Lakewood v. Papadelis
green
2 sentences2019Furthermore, the record reflects that the trial court did not contemplate any alternative to this sanction, much less consider the feasibility of a sanction less severe than the exclusion of Mr. Pieronek’s witness. {¶29} Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. “[T]he trial court did not indicate that it balanced the [S]tate’s interests against [Mr. Pieronek’s] Sixth Amendment right to present a defense by considering any sanction other than excluding the testimony of his witnesses.” Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d at 5 . 2004Id. | 3 | 2003–2019 |
Cleveland Paint & Color Co. v. Bauer Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences2024Co., 155 Ohio St. 17, 25 , 97 N.E.2d 545 (1951), where an insurer has paid only part of a loss, both the insured and insurer have substantive rights against the tortfeasor, which qualify them as real parties in interest. 2024Co., 155 Ohio St. 17, 25 , 97 N.E.2d 545 (1951), where an insurer has paid only part of a loss, both the insured and insurer have substantive rights against the tortfeasor, which qualify them as real parties in interest. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Darmond
green
2 sentences2013Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio-966 , 986 N.E.2d 971 , at the syllabus, quoting Lakewood, paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶20} In Lakewood, the court had viewed the trial court’s sanction of excluding the testimony of the defense witnesses as too severe because it effectively deprived the defendant of the ability to present a defense. 2013Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio-966 , 986 N.E.2d 971 , at the syllabus, quoting Lakewood, paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶20} In Lakewood, the court had viewed the trial court’s sanction of excluding the testimony of the defense witnesses as too severe because it effectively deprived the defendant of the ability to present a defense. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences2004Defendant further notes that even Doe's mother was not convinced that a crime had occurred, but she feared that the woman would be removed from her home if she did not pursue criminal charges. {¶ 57} In considering whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court "weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [factfinder] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial 2004Defendant further notes that even Doe's mother was not convinced that a crime had occurred, but she feared that the woman would be removed from her home if she did not pursue criminal charges. {¶ 57} In considering whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court "weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [factfinder] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.