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 3 courts 2000–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bouliesgreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., Boulies, 690 P.2d at 1257, fn. 7 ; Berry, 298 So.2d 491 ; Commonwealth v. Jones (1989), 405 Mass. 661 , 542 N.E.2d 1040 (defendant does not lose right to claim error even if defense counsel agreed to alternate’s presence); Bindyke, 288 N.C. at 623-630 , 220 S.E.2d at 531-535 ; Yancey, 640 P.2d 970 ; Cuzick, 85 Wash.2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 . 2001See, e.g., Boulies, 690 P.2d at 1257, fn. 7 ; Berry, 298 So.2d 491 ; Commonwealth v. Jones (1989), 405 Mass. 661 , 542 N.E.2d 1040 (defendant does not lose right to claim error even if defense counsel agreed to alternate’s presence); Bindyke, 288 N.C. at 623-630 , 220 S.E.2d at 531-535 ; Yancey, 640 P.2d 970 ; Cuzick, 85 Wash.2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 . 25 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 107} However, as explained above, we have consistently enforced Ohio’s waiver and plain error rules. | 2 | 2 |
Bridges v. National Engineering & Contracting Co.green1 sentence2024Eng. & Contracting Co., 49 Ohio St.3d 108, 111 (199o) (defendant’s assertion of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in its answer “preserved on the record its 10 No. 23AP-647 continuing objection to the sufficiency of the complaint,” despite the trial court ruling solely on an alternate defense on summary judgment). {¶ 25} Because WBNS sufficiently asserted privilege as an affirmative defense in its answer, it did not later waive that defense by not moving for summary judgment on that basis. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence2000See State v. Phillips (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 72 , 85 , certiorari denied (1996), 517 U.S. 1213 , 134 L.Ed.2d 938 (observing that the defendant's assertion that trial counsel should have pursued an alternate defense was unfounded given the strategic nature of that choice); State v. Decker (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 137 , 140-41 (concluding that the decision not to pursue an insanity defense was a reasoned, strategic choice). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. AmSouth Bancorporation, N. A.green1 sentence2000See State v. Phillips (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 72 , 85 , certiorari denied (1996), 517 U.S. 1213 , 134 L.Ed.2d 938 (observing that the defendant's assertion that trial counsel should have pursued an alternate defense was unfounded given the strategic nature of that choice); State v. Decker (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 137 , 140-41 (concluding that the decision not to pursue an insanity defense was a reasoned, strategic choice). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yancey v. State
green
2 sentences2001See, e.g., Boulies, 690 P.2d at 1257, fn. 7 ; Berry, 298 So.2d 491 ; Commonwealth v. Jones (1989), 405 Mass. 661 , 542 N.E.2d 1040 (defendant does not lose right to claim error even if defense counsel agreed to alternate’s presence); Bindyke, 288 N.C. at 623-630 , 220 S.E.2d at 531-535 ; Yancey, 640 P.2d 970 ; Cuzick, 85 Wash.2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 . 2001See, e.g., Boulies, 690 P.2d at 1257, fn. 7 ; Berry, 298 So.2d 491 ; Commonwealth v. Jones (1989), 405 Mass. 661 , 542 N.E.2d 1040 (defendant does not lose right to claim error even if defense counsel agreed to alternate’s presence); Bindyke, 288 N.C. at 623-630 , 220 S.E.2d at 531-535 ; Yancey, 640 P.2d 970 ; Cuzick, 85 Wash.2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 . 25 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 107} However, as explained above, we have consistently enforced Ohio’s waiver and plain error rules. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Cuzick
green
2 sentences2001See, e.g., Boulies, 690 P.2d at 1257, fn. 7 ; Berry, 298 So.2d 491 ; Commonwealth v. Jones (1989), 405 Mass. 661 , 542 N.E.2d 1040 (defendant does not lose right to claim error even if defense counsel agreed to alternate’s presence); Bindyke, 288 N.C. at 623-630 , 220 S.E.2d at 531-535 ; Yancey, 640 P.2d 970 ; Cuzick, 85 Wash.2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 . 2001See, e.g., Boulies, 690 P.2d at 1257, fn. 7 ; Berry, 298 So.2d 491 ; Commonwealth v. Jones (1989), 405 Mass. 661 , 542 N.E.2d 1040 (defendant does not lose right to claim error even if defense counsel agreed to alternate’s presence); Bindyke, 288 N.C. at 623-630 , 220 S.E.2d at 531-535 ; Yancey, 640 P.2d 970 ; Cuzick, 85 Wash.2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Berry v. State
green
2 sentences2001See, e.g., Boulies, 690 P.2d at 1257, fn. 7 ; Berry, 298 So.2d 491 ; Commonwealth v. Jones (1989), 405 Mass. 661 , 542 N.E.2d 1040 (defendant does not lose right to claim error even if defense counsel agreed to alternate’s presence); Bindyke, 288 N.C. at 623-630 , 220 S.E.2d at 531-535 ; Yancey, 640 P.2d 970 ; Cuzick, 85 Wash.2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 . 2001See, e.g., Boulies, 690 P.2d at 1257, fn. 7 ; Berry, 298 So.2d 491 ; Commonwealth v. Jones (1989), 405 Mass. 661 , 542 N.E.2d 1040 (defendant does not lose right to claim error even if defense counsel agreed to alternate’s presence); Bindyke, 288 N.C. at 623-630 , 220 S.E.2d at 531-535 ; Yancey, 640 P.2d 970 ; Cuzick, 85 Wash.2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 . 25 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 107} However, as explained above, we have consistently enforced Ohio’s waiver and plain error rules. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Commonwealth v. Jones
green
2 sentences2001See, e.g., Boulies, 690 P.2d at 1257, fn. 7 ; Berry, 298 So.2d 491 ; Commonwealth v. Jones (1989), 405 Mass. 661 , 542 N.E.2d 1040 (defendant does not lose right to claim error even if defense counsel agreed to alternate’s presence); Bindyke, 288 N.C. at 623-630 , 220 S.E.2d at 531-535 ; Yancey, 640 P.2d 970 ; Cuzick, 85 Wash.2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 . 2001See, e.g., Boulies, 690 P.2d at 1257, fn. 7 ; Berry, 298 So.2d 491 ; Commonwealth v. Jones (1989), 405 Mass. 661 , 542 N.E.2d 1040 (defendant does not lose right to claim error even if defense counsel agreed to alternate’s presence); Bindyke, 288 N.C. at 623-630 , 220 S.E.2d at 531-535 ; Yancey, 640 P.2d 970 ; Cuzick, 85 Wash.2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Bindyke
green
2 sentences2001See, e.g., Boulies, 690 P.2d at 1257, fn. 7 ; Berry, 298 So.2d 491 ; Commonwealth v. Jones (1989), 405 Mass. 661 , 542 N.E.2d 1040 (defendant does not lose right to claim error even if defense counsel agreed to alternate’s presence); Bindyke, 288 N.C. at 623-630 , 220 S.E.2d at 531-535 ; Yancey, 640 P.2d 970 ; Cuzick, 85 Wash.2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 . 2001See, e.g., Boulies, 690 P.2d at 1257, fn. 7 ; Berry, 298 So.2d 491 ; Commonwealth v. Jones (1989), 405 Mass. 661 , 542 N.E.2d 1040 (defendant does not lose right to claim error even if defense counsel agreed to alternate’s presence); Bindyke, 288 N.C. at 623-630 , 220 S.E.2d at 531-535 ; Yancey, 640 P.2d 970 ; Cuzick, 85 Wash.2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Eskridge
green
1 sentence2024While M.B.’s testimony that she urinated on herself after the sexual contact in the dining room and was scared and crying during the sexual conduct in the basement shower may be sufficient to demonstrate that she was overcome by fear or duress and therefore satisfied the element of force pursuant to Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56 , N.E.2d 304, Eskridge is limited by Schaim, and the alternate instruction of the definition of force given to the jury was not applicable because M.B. was an adult at the time of the offenses. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Dye
green
2 sentences2024Because of this, the trial court’s Eskridge instruction was erroneous.6 The state concedes that Eskridge only applies to a minor victim; however, it argues on appeal that while M.B. was 18 at the time of the incident, Eskridge and Dye, 82 Ohio St.3d 323 , 695 N.E.2d 763 , should be applied because M.B. “acted in the same fearful way that a minor child would act.” There is, however, no precedent extending Eskridge’s holding to a victim who has reached the age of majority in cases involving a parental authority figure or domestic situation. 2024Because of this, the trial court’s Eskridge instruction was erroneous.6 The state concedes that Eskridge only applies to a minor victim; however, it argues on appeal that while M.B. was 18 at the time of the incident, Eskridge and Dye, 82 Ohio St.3d 323 , 695 N.E.2d 763 , should be applied because M.B. “acted in the same fearful way that a minor child would act.” There is, however, no precedent extending Eskridge’s holding to a victim who has reached the age of majority in cases involving a parental authority figure or domestic situation. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State ex rel. Repository v. Nova Behavioral Health, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019Id., citing State ex rel. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kyles v. Whitley
green
1 sentence2013Kyles, 514 U.S. at 422 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Decker
green
1 sentence2000See State v. Phillips (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 72 , 85 , certiorari denied (1996), 517 U.S. 1213 , 134 L.Ed.2d 938 (observing that the defendant's assertion that trial counsel should have pursued an alternate defense was unfounded given the strategic nature of that choice); State v. Decker (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 137 , 140-41 (concluding that the decision not to pursue an insanity defense was a reasoned, strategic choice). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.