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 2 courts 1988–2026 3 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State v. Stanberry, Unpublished Decision (10-24-2003)green1 sentence2025State v. Garcia, 2024-Ohio-1509, ¶ 19 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Stanberry, 2003-Ohio-5700, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nieldsgreen1 sentence2025“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not successful when trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress was a tactical decision, there was no reasonable probability of success, or there was no prejudice.” State v. Barnhart, 2019-Ohio-5002, ¶ 32 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Nields, 93 Ohio St.3d 6, 34 (2001). {¶ 93} Generally, warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable unless a delineated exception applies. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garciagreen1 sentence2025State v. Garcia, 2024-Ohio-1509, ¶ 19 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Stanberry, 2003-Ohio-5700, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barnhartgreen1 sentence2025“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not successful when trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress was a tactical decision, there was no reasonable probability of success, or there was no prejudice.” State v. Barnhart, 2019-Ohio-5002, ¶ 32 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Nields, 93 Ohio St.3d 6, 34 (2001). {¶ 93} Generally, warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable unless a delineated exception applies. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Halegreen2 sentences2023State v. Hale, 2023-Ohio-980 , 212 N.E.3d 32, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.). [W]here the validity of a search rests on consent, the State has the burden of proving that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given, a burden that is not satisfied by showing a mere submission to a claim of lawful authority. 2023State v. Hale, 2023-Ohio-980 , 212 N.E.3d 32, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.). [W]here the validity of a search rests on consent, the State has the burden of proving that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given, a burden that is not satisfied by showing a mere submission to a claim of lawful authority. | 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. Arnett
green
2 sentences2005Although R.C. 2929.12 requires the trial court to consider the delineated factors, the court is not required to "use specific language or make specific findings on the record in order to evince the requisite consideration of the applicable seriousness and recidivism factors [of R.C. 2929.12]." State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 , 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 , 2000-Ohio-302 . 2004Although R.C. 2929.12 requires the trial court to consider the delineated factors, the court is not required to "use specific language or make specific findings on the record in order to evince the requisite consideration of the applicable seriousness and recidivism factors [of R.C. 2929.12 ]." State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 , 215 , 2000-Ohio-302 . | 2 | 2004–2005 |
State v. Arnett
green
2 sentences2005Although R.C. 2929.12 requires the trial court to consider the delineated factors, the court is not required to "use specific language or make specific findings on the record in order to evince the requisite consideration of the applicable seriousness and recidivism factors [of R.C. 2929.12]." State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 , 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 , 2000-Ohio-302 . 2005Although R.C. 2929.12 requires the trial court to consider the delineated factors, the court is not required to "use specific language or make specific findings on the record in order to evince the requisite consideration of the applicable seriousness and recidivism factors [of R.C. 2929.12]." State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 , 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 , 2000-Ohio-302 . | 2 | 2004–2005 |
State v. Parson
green
1 sentence2026Id. at ¶ 35, citing State v. Parson, 6 Ohio St.3d 442 (1983), at syllabus. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Kunkle v. Kunkle
red
2 sentences2000The trial court also acknowledged the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in Kunkle v. Kunkle (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 64 , 554 N.E.2d 83 , para. one of syllabus ("[e]xcept in cases involving a marriage of long duration, parties of advanced age or a homemaker-spouse with little opportunity to develop meaningful employment outside the home, where a payee spouse has the resources, ability and potential to be self-supporting, an award of sustenance alimony should provide for the termination of the award, within a reasonable time and upon a date certain, in order to place a definitive limit upon the parties 2000The trial court also acknowledged the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in Kunkle v. Kunkle (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 64 , 554 N.E.2d 83 , para. one of syllabus ("[e]xcept in cases involving a marriage of long duration, parties of advanced age or a homemaker-spouse with little opportunity to develop meaningful employment outside the home, where a payee spouse has the resources, ability and potential to be self-supporting, an award of sustenance alimony should provide for the termination of the award, within a reasonable time and upon a date certain, in order to place a definitive limit upon the parties | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hershberger v. Akron City Hospital
green
2 sentences1988In Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp. (1987), 34 Ohio St. 3d 1 , 516 N.E. 2d 204 , this court delineated the factors to be considered in order to determine the date of discovery in a medical malpractice action. 1988In Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp. (1987), 34 Ohio St. 3d 1 , 516 N.E. 2d 204 , this court delineated the factors to be considered in order to determine the date of discovery in a medical malpractice action. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.