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 2013–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Xenia v. Wallacegreen2 sentences2026“Arguments not made by the defendant at the suppression hearing are, therefore, deemed to have been waived.” Id. at ¶ 19, citing Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216, 218 (1988). 2022C-200245 and C-200246, 2021-Ohio-2194 , ¶ 15- 16, quoting City of Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216, 219 , 524 N.E.2d 889 (1988), and State v. Wintermeyer, 158 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2019-Ohio-5156 , 145 N.E.3d 278 , ¶ 19 (“To suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrantless search or seizure, the defendant must ‘raise the grounds upon which the validity of the search or seizure is challenged in such a manner as to give the prosecutor notice of the basis for the challenge.’ * * * ‘Arguments not made by the defendant at the suppression hearing are, 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS therefo | 2 | 3 |
State v. Peaglergreen2 sentences2026See also State v. Peagler, 76 Ohio St.3d 496, 500 (1996) (“Failure on the part of the defendant to adequately raise the basis of his challenge constitutes a waiver of that issue on appeal.”). 2021“Arguments not made by the defendant at the suppression hearing are, therefore, deemed to have been waived.” Id. {¶17} A trial court commits reversible error by granting a motion to suppress on a basis not raised by the defendant’s motion because the state is not provided with an opportunity to adequately prepare arguments and present evidence on an issue not raised by the defendant. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Vega
green
2 sentences2013GRENDELL, J., concurs in judgment only, with a Concurring Opinion. {¶20} I concur in the judgment of this court, that, pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b) and R.C. 3701.143, as interpreted by State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 , 465 N.E.2d 1303 (1984), a defendant may not challenge the general reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 as a testing instrument approved by the Ohio director of health. {¶21} I cannot, however, agree with this court’s comments regarding the burden shifting to the defendant at the suppression hearing when challenging the Intoxilyzer 8000’s test results. {¶22} In a pretrial mo 2013GRENDELL, J., concurs in judgment only, with a Concurring Opinion. {¶20} I concur in the judgment of this court, that, pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b) and R.C. 3701.143, as interpreted by State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 , 465 N.E.2d 1303 (1984), a defendant may not challenge the general reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 as a testing instrument approved by the Ohio director of health. {¶21} I cannot, however, agree with this court’s comments regarding the burden shifting to the defendant at the suppression hearing when challenging the Intoxilyzer 8000’s test results. {¶22} In a pretrial mo | 3 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Wintermeyer (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022C-200245 and C-200246, 2021-Ohio-2194 , ¶ 15- 16, quoting City of Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216, 219 , 524 N.E.2d 889 (1988), and State v. Wintermeyer, 158 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2019-Ohio-5156 , 145 N.E.3d 278 , ¶ 19 (“To suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrantless search or seizure, the defendant must ‘raise the grounds upon which the validity of the search or seizure is challenged in such a manner as to give the prosecutor notice of the basis for the challenge.’ * * * ‘Arguments not made by the defendant at the suppression hearing are, 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS therefo 2022C-200245 and C-200246, 2021-Ohio-2194 , ¶ 15- 16, quoting City of Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216, 219 , 524 N.E.2d 889 (1988), and State v. Wintermeyer, 158 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2019-Ohio-5156 , 145 N.E.3d 278 , ¶ 19 (“To suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrantless search or seizure, the defendant must ‘raise the grounds upon which the validity of the search or seizure is challenged in such a manner as to give the prosecutor notice of the basis for the challenge.’ * * * ‘Arguments not made by the defendant at the suppression hearing are, 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS therefo | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Billings
green
1 sentence2022C-200245 and C-200246, 2021-Ohio-2194 , ¶ 15- 16, quoting City of Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216, 219 , 524 N.E.2d 889 (1988), and State v. Wintermeyer, 158 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2019-Ohio-5156 , 145 N.E.3d 278 , ¶ 19 (“To suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrantless search or seizure, the defendant must ‘raise the grounds upon which the validity of the search or seizure is challenged in such a manner as to give the prosecutor notice of the basis for the challenge.’ * * * ‘Arguments not made by the defendant at the suppression hearing are, 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS therefo | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Byrnes
green
1 sentence2021State v. Skeens, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2017 AP 11 0030, 2018-Ohio-1610, ¶ 20 ; State v. Tyson, 2015-Ohio-3530 , 41 N.E.3d 450 , ¶ 32 (3d Dist); State v. Byrnes, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25860, 2014-Ohio-1274 , ¶ 13- 14; State v. Duke, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 12CA010225, 2013-Ohio-743, ¶ 12 . {¶18} In this case, the only ground upon which Billings challenged the validity of his warrantless arrest was whether probable cause existed to arrest him for obstructing official business. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Tyson
green
1 sentence2021State v. Skeens, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2017 AP 11 0030, 2018-Ohio-1610, ¶ 20 ; State v. Tyson, 2015-Ohio-3530 , 41 N.E.3d 450 , ¶ 32 (3d Dist); State v. Byrnes, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25860, 2014-Ohio-1274 , ¶ 13- 14; State v. Duke, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 12CA010225, 2013-Ohio-743, ¶ 12 . {¶18} In this case, the only ground upon which Billings challenged the validity of his warrantless arrest was whether probable cause existed to arrest him for obstructing official business. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Skeens
neutral
1 sentence2021State v. Skeens, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2017 AP 11 0030, 2018-Ohio-1610, ¶ 20 ; State v. Tyson, 2015-Ohio-3530 , 41 N.E.3d 450 , ¶ 32 (3d Dist); State v. Byrnes, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25860, 2014-Ohio-1274 , ¶ 13- 14; State v. Duke, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 12CA010225, 2013-Ohio-743, ¶ 12 . {¶18} In this case, the only ground upon which Billings challenged the validity of his warrantless arrest was whether probable cause existed to arrest him for obstructing official business. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Duke
green
1 sentence2021State v. Skeens, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2017 AP 11 0030, 2018-Ohio-1610, ¶ 20 ; State v. Tyson, 2015-Ohio-3530 , 41 N.E.3d 450 , ¶ 32 (3d Dist); State v. Byrnes, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25860, 2014-Ohio-1274 , ¶ 13- 14; State v. Duke, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 12CA010225, 2013-Ohio-743, ¶ 12 . {¶18} In this case, the only ground upon which Billings challenged the validity of his warrantless arrest was whether probable cause existed to arrest him for obstructing official business. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.