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 1990–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
West Virginia v. Ohio Hazardous Waste Facility Approval Boardgreen2 sentences1990Cf. West Virginia v. Hazardous Waste Facility Approval Bd. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 83, 87 , 28 OBR 179, 183, 502 N.E.2d 625, 630 (court noting, without disapproval, that “[t]he board chose to reject the first recommendation based on its own findings”). 1990Cf. West Virginia v. Hazardous Waste Facility Approval Bd. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 83, 87 , 28 OBR 179, 183, 502 N.E.2d 625, 630 (court noting, without disapproval, that “[t]he board chose to reject the first recommendation based on its own findings”). | 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. Jones
green
2 sentences2012Cf. State v. Jones, supra, 2012–Ohio–2075 ¶ 23 (where the trial court stated during the sentencing hearing that it was ordering the prison terms to be served consecutively because the defendant had an extensive criminal history and the victims had been seriously injured, these statements were sufficient to show that the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences was appropriate and complied with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)); State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. 2012Cf. State v. Jones, supra, 2012–Ohio–2075 ¶ 23 (where the Delaware County, Case No. 12CAA030022 7 trial court stated during the sentencing hearing that it was ordering the prison terms to be served consecutively because the defendant had an extensive criminal history and the victims had been seriously injured, these statements were sufficient to show that the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences was appropriate and complied with R.C. 2929 .14(C)(4)); State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. | 3 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022He claimed he “was told at sentencing that the law requiring the fact finding was no longer required” but in 2014 the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the factual findings requirement in State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014-Ohio-3177 , 16 N.E.3d 659 . 2022He claimed he “was told at sentencing that the law requiring the fact finding was no longer required” but in 2014 the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the factual findings requirement in State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014-Ohio-3177 , 16 N.E.3d 659 . | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Pushay v. Walter
green
2 sentences1990Serv. (1985), 29 Ohio App. 3d 77, 80 , that: "The trial court incorrectly held that the factual findings of the hearing examiner were to be given deference over factual findings by the board, since, pursuant to R.C. 119.09, the board can make de novo factual findings if supported by the record ***." See, also, Pushay v. Walter (Sept. 20, 1984), Franklin App. No. 83AP-1103, unreported (1984 Opinions 2334, 3241), reversed on other grounds (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 315 ; Dietz v. State (June 29, 1984), Lake App. No. 10-079, unreported ("We conclude that, under R.C. 119.09, the agency is the ultimate 1990Serv., supra, 29 Ohio App.3d at 80 , 29 OBR at 91, 502 N.E.2d at 669 , that: “The trial court incorrectly held that the factual findings of the hearing examiner were to be given deference over factual findings by the board, since, pursuant to R.C. 119.09, the board can make de novo factual findings if supported by the record * * See, also, Pushay v. Walter (Sept. 20, 1984), Franklin App. No. 83AP-1103, unreported, 1984 WL 5901 , reversed on other grounds (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 315 ,18 OBR 361, 481 N.E.2d 575 ; Dietz v. State (June 29, 1984), Lake App. No. 10-079, unreported, 1984 WL 7391 (“We c | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Blinn v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services
green
2 sentences1990Serv. (1985), 29 Ohio App. 3d 77, 80 , that: "The trial court incorrectly held that the factual findings of the hearing examiner were to be given deference over factual findings by the board, since, pursuant to R.C. 119.09, the board can make de novo factual findings if supported by the record ***." See, also, Pushay v. Walter (Sept. 20, 1984), Franklin App. No. 83AP-1103, unreported (1984 Opinions 2334, 3241), reversed on other grounds (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 315 ; Dietz v. State (June 29, 1984), Lake App. No. 10-079, unreported ("We conclude that, under R.C. 119.09, the agency is the ultimate 1990Serv., supra, 29 Ohio App.3d at 80 , 29 OBR at 91, 502 N.E.2d at 669 , that: “The trial court incorrectly held that the factual findings of the hearing examiner were to be given deference over factual findings by the board, since, pursuant to R.C. 119.09, the board can make de novo factual findings if supported by the record * * See, also, Pushay v. Walter (Sept. 20, 1984), Franklin App. No. 83AP-1103, unreported, 1984 WL 5901 , reversed on other grounds (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 315 ,18 OBR 361, 481 N.E.2d 575 ; Dietz v. State (June 29, 1984), Lake App. No. 10-079, unreported, 1984 WL 7391 (“We c | 2 | 1990–1990 |
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.