7 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2019 0 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State v. Thompson, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2005)green1 sentence2018Cuyahoga No. 85483, 2005-Ohio-6126, ¶ 30 (waiver of counsel not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made where court did not advise defendant of any possible defenses to the charges). {¶16} After accepting Robinson’s waiver, the trial court compounded its error by advising Robinson that it would appoint standby counsel for him, but that [h]e is here should you decide that you wish to re-engage in the attorney-client relationship with [counsel]. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dunlapgreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., State v. Dunlap (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 308, 315 , 652 N.E.2d 988 . {¶ 86} A similar instruction resulted in reversible error in Penix because the trial court compounded its error by charging the jury that the presence of multiple aggravating circumstances should be given special weight. 2004See, e.g., State v. Dunlap (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 308, 315 , 652 N.E.2d 988 . {¶ 86} A similar instruction resulted in reversible error in Penix because the trial court compounded its error by charging the jury that the presence of multiple aggravating circumstances should be given special weight. | 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. Lackey
neutral
1 sentence2019Observing that the complaint filed against him alleged that Gibson committed the offense of obstructing official business, “TO WIT,” by going “back into his residence while officers were attempting to check for further injured parties inside the residence” (Trial Court Docket #1, p. 2), Gibson suggests that the trial court should have instructed the jury that it was restricted to considering Gibson’s act of re-entering his residence as the basis for the obstructing 2 Although Gibson suggests that de novo review applies, the appropriate standard of review in this case is for an abuse of discret | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Stephens
green
2 sentences2017So you are not to consider whether someone in some speculative account of what may have occurred, that self-defense would have been a possible [defense]. {¶56} “‘[B]oth the prosecution and the defense have wide latitude in summation as to what the evidence has shown and what reasonable inferences may be drawn therefrom.’” State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 165 , 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990), quoting State v. Stephens, 24 Ohio St.2d 76, 82 , 263 N.E.2d 773 (1970). 2017So you are not to consider whether someone in some speculative account of what may have occurred, that self-defense would have been a possible [defense]. {¶56} “‘[B]oth the prosecution and the defense have wide latitude in summation as to what the evidence has shown and what reasonable inferences may be drawn therefrom.’” State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 165 , 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990), quoting State v. Stephens, 24 Ohio St.2d 76, 82 , 263 N.E.2d 773 (1970). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Lott
green
2 sentences2017So you are not to consider whether someone in some speculative account of what may have occurred, that self-defense would have been a possible [defense]. {¶56} “‘[B]oth the prosecution and the defense have wide latitude in summation as to what the evidence has shown and what reasonable inferences may be drawn therefrom.’” State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 165 , 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990), quoting State v. Stephens, 24 Ohio St.2d 76, 82 , 263 N.E.2d 773 (1970). 2017So you are not to consider whether someone in some speculative account of what may have occurred, that self-defense would have been a possible [defense]. {¶56} “‘[B]oth the prosecution and the defense have wide latitude in summation as to what the evidence has shown and what reasonable inferences may be drawn therefrom.’” State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 165 , 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990), quoting State v. Stephens, 24 Ohio St.2d 76, 82 , 263 N.E.2d 773 (1970). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Berdyck v. Shinde
green
2 sentences2015Rather, the question is whether the hospital’s medical professionals “employ[ed] that degree of skill, care and diligence that a physician or surgeon of the same medical specialty would employ in like circumstances.” Berdyck v. Shinde, 66 Ohio St.3d 573, 579 , 613 N.E.2d 1014 (1993). {¶ 53} The trial court compounded this error by stating the foreseeability instruction in terms of probability. 2015Rather, the question is whether the hospital’s medical professionals “employ[ed] that degree of skill, care and diligence that a physician or surgeon of the same medical specialty would employ in like circumstances.” Berdyck v. Shinde, 66 Ohio St.3d 573, 579 , 613 N.E.2d 1014 (1993). {¶ 53} The trial court compounded this error by stating the foreseeability instruction in terms of probability. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Penix
green
2 sentences2004Penix, 32 Ohio St.3d at 372 , 513 N.E.2d 744 . 2004Penix, 32 Ohio St.3d at 372 , 513 N.E.2d 744 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Maggio v. City of Cleveland
green
1 sentence2002Maggio v. Cleveland (1949), 151 Ohio St. 136 , 140 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hahn v. Kotten
green
2 sentences1989We stated in paragraph two of the syllabus in Hahn v. Rotten (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 237 , 72 O.O. 2d 134, 331 N.E. 2d 713 , that: “A qualified privilege protecting the making of defamatory statements is exceeded when the statements are made with ‘actual malice,’ that is, with knowledge that the statements are false or with reckless disregard of whether they are false or not.” The trial court instructed the jury as follows: “A publication is made with actual malice when made with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it is false or not.” The language of which defe 1989We stated in paragraph two of the syllabus in Hahn v. Rotten (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 237 , 72 O.O. 2d 134, 331 N.E. 2d 713 , that: “A qualified privilege protecting the making of defamatory statements is exceeded when the statements are made with ‘actual malice,’ that is, with knowledge that the statements are false or with reckless disregard of whether they are false or not.” The trial court instructed the jury as follows: “A publication is made with actual malice when made with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it is false or not.” The language of which defe | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.