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 2004–2026 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. ONeilgreen1 sentence2026“A defendant is ‘only entitled to a hearing on a motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial if he submits documents which, on their face, support his claim that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the evidence at issue.’” State v. Oneil, 2023-Ohio-1089, ¶ 33 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. McConnell, 2007-Ohio-1181, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McConnellgreen1 sentence2026“A defendant is ‘only entitled to a hearing on a motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial if he submits documents which, on their face, support his claim that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the evidence at issue.’” State v. Oneil, 2023-Ohio-1089, ¶ 33 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. McConnell, 2007-Ohio-1181, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.). | 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. Nero
green
2 sentences2024Id. {¶ 26} Griggs at ¶ 12. 2019The test for prejudice is “whether the plea would have otherwise been made.” Id. -13- Under the substantial-compliance standard, we review the totality of circumstances surrounding Griggs’s plea and determine whether he subjectively understood that a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt. | 4 | 2004–2024 |
Midland Funding, L.L.C. v. Snedeker
green
1 sentence2025See Cavalry SPV, I LLC v. Workman, 2019- Ohio-4750 (5th Dist.); Midland Funding, LLC v. Snedeker, 2014-Ohio-887 (5th Dist.); Midland Funding, LLC v. Biehl, 2013-Ohio-4150 (5th Dist.).1 In these cases, this court found the purported assignees failed to produce sufficient evidence of a lawful assignment and each of those cases included more information than this case. {¶ 15} Upon review, we find the trial court misapplied the law to the facts and its decision was legally incorrect; therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Griggs's motion to vacate the order of substitution of | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Midland Funding, L.L.C. v. Biehl
green
1 sentence2025See Cavalry SPV, I LLC v. Workman, 2019- Ohio-4750 (5th Dist.); Midland Funding, LLC v. Snedeker, 2014-Ohio-887 (5th Dist.); Midland Funding, LLC v. Biehl, 2013-Ohio-4150 (5th Dist.).1 In these cases, this court found the purported assignees failed to produce sufficient evidence of a lawful assignment and each of those cases included more information than this case. {¶ 15} Upon review, we find the trial court misapplied the law to the facts and its decision was legally incorrect; therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Griggs's motion to vacate the order of substitution of | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Griffey v. Rajan
green
1 sentence2025Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (1987). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Otten
green
1 sentence2008Accordingly, we address Griggs' challenge to the weight of the evidence first, as it is dispositive of his claim of sufficiency. {¶ 8} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court: "[M]ust review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered." State v. Otten (1986), | 1 | 2008–2008 |
North Carolina v. Alford
green
2 sentences2004Id. {¶ 13} In North Carolina v. Alford (1970), 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 , the Supreme Court validated what has become commonly known as an “Alford plea,” whereby a defendant pleads guilty yet maintains actual innocence of the charges. 2004Id. {¶ 13} In North Carolina v. Alford (1970), 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 , the Supreme Court validated what has become commonly known as an “Alford plea,” whereby a defendant pleads guilty yet maintains actual innocence of the charges. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.