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 1 courts 1999–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Underwood
green
2 sentences2023Butler No. CA2001-09-203, 2002-Ohio-4482 , ¶ 26, citing State v. Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12 (1983). 2021Butler No. CA2001-09-203, 2002-Ohio-4482 , ¶ 26 ("[w]ith respect to an allegedly improper jury instruction, plain error exists only where, but for the error, the outcome of the trial would have been clearly different"), citing State v. Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12 (1983), syllabus. | 5 | 2002–2023 |
State v. Wolons
green
2 sentences2018Butler No. CA2001-09-203, 2002-Ohio-4482 , 2002 WL 2005691 , ¶ 26, citing State v. Underwood , 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 (1983). {¶ 28} The trial court "has discretion to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to require a jury instruction on intoxication." State v. Nields , 93 Ohio St.3d 6 , 22, 752 N.E.2d 859 (2001), citing State v. Wolons , 44 Ohio St.3d 64 , 541 N.E.2d 443 (1989). 2018Butler No. CA2001-09-203, 2002-Ohio-4482 , 2002 WL 2005691 , ¶ 26, citing State v. Underwood , 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 (1983). {¶ 28} The trial court "has discretion to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to require a jury instruction on intoxication." State v. Nields , 93 Ohio St.3d 6 , 22, 752 N.E.2d 859 (2001), citing State v. Wolons , 44 Ohio St.3d 64 , 541 N.E.2d 443 (1989). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Nields
green
2 sentences2018Butler No. CA2001-09-203, 2002-Ohio-4482 , 2002 WL 2005691 , ¶ 26, citing State v. Underwood , 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 (1983). {¶ 28} The trial court "has discretion to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to require a jury instruction on intoxication." State v. Nields , 93 Ohio St.3d 6 , 22, 752 N.E.2d 859 (2001), citing State v. Wolons , 44 Ohio St.3d 64 , 541 N.E.2d 443 (1989). 2018Butler No. CA2001-09-203, 2002-Ohio-4482 , 2002 WL 2005691 , ¶ 26, citing State v. Underwood , 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 (1983). {¶ 28} The trial court "has discretion to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to require a jury instruction on intoxication." State v. Nields , 93 Ohio St.3d 6 , 22, 752 N.E.2d 859 (2001), citing State v. Wolons , 44 Ohio St.3d 64 , 541 N.E.2d 443 (1989). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Adams
green
1 sentence2013Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d at 153 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2003Defendant's first assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 26} Defendant's second assignment of error asserts his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the evidence referenced in the first assignment of error and in failing to object to an allegedly improper jury instruction. {¶ 27} "In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must meet the two-prong test enunciated in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . 2003Defendant's first assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 26} Defendant's second assignment of error asserts his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the evidence referenced in the first assignment of error and in failing to object to an allegedly improper jury instruction. {¶ 27} "In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must meet the two-prong test enunciated in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Hill
green
1 sentence1999In our decision that permitted Sleppy to reopen his appeal, we specifically limited the scope of the reopened proceedings to the issue of whether Sleppy's former appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue the applicability of State v. Hill, supra. The issue Sleppy now attempts to raise exceeds the scope of the reopened appeal. | 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.