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 1990–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schade v. Carnegie Body Co.green1 sentence2018The doctrine implicates errors that are "obvious and prejudicial although neither objected to nor affirmatively waived which, if permitted, would have a material adverse affect on the character and public confidence in judicial proceedings." Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 (1982). {¶ 25} As McCoppin and the Shareholders failed to file objections to the magistrate's decision, they have waived their right to appellate review except for the narrow issue of plain error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. DePewgreen1 sentence2008See, also, State v. Thompson (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 1 , 10 , 528 N.E.2d 542 ; State v. Williford (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 247 , 253 , 551 N.E.2d 1279 (Resnick, J., dissenting). {¶ 23} Although appellant has not raised the issue of plain error in his assignments of error, this court will review them under the plain error standard. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2008See, also, State v. Thompson (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 1 , 10 , 528 N.E.2d 542 ; State v. Williford (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 247 , 253 , 551 N.E.2d 1279 (Resnick, J., dissenting). {¶ 23} Although appellant has not raised the issue of plain error in his assignments of error, this court will review them under the plain error standard. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Goldfuss v. Davidson
green
2 sentences2005The doctrine of plain error is limited to exceptionally rare cases in which the error, left unobjected to at the trial court, "rises to the level of challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself." See Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 122 , 1997-Ohio-401 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 . {¶ 47} Although appellant has not raised the issue of plain error in his this assignment of error, this court will review same under the plain error standard. {¶ 48} R.C. 3105.171 (A)(2)(a) provides that "during the marriage" generally means the period of time from the date of marriage through 2004The doctrine of plain error is limited to exceptionally rare cases in which the error, left unobjected to at the trial court, "rises to the level of challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself." See Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 122 , 1997-Ohio-401 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 . {¶ 31} Although appellant has not raised the issue of plain error in his assignments of error, this court will review appellant's assignments of error II through IV under the plain error standard. {¶ 32} In addition, assignments of error II through IV concern the allocation of parental rights | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Goldfuss v. Davidson
green
2 sentences2005The doctrine of plain error is limited to exceptionally rare cases in which the error, left unobjected to at the trial court, "rises to the level of challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself." See Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 122 , 1997-Ohio-401 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 . {¶ 47} Although appellant has not raised the issue of plain error in his this assignment of error, this court will review same under the plain error standard. {¶ 48} R.C. 3105.171 (A)(2)(a) provides that "during the marriage" generally means the period of time from the date of marriage through 2005The doctrine of plain error is limited to exceptionally rare cases in which the error, left unobjected to at the trial court, "rises to the level of challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself." See Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 122 , 1997-Ohio-401 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 . {¶ 47} Although appellant has not raised the issue of plain error in his this assignment of error, this court will review same under the plain error standard. {¶ 48} R.C. 3105.171 (A)(2)(a) provides that "during the marriage" generally means the period of time from the date of marriage through | 2 | 2004–2005 |
State v. Barnes
green
2 sentences2025However, the accused bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record, Quarterman at ¶ 16, and must show “an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” that constitutes “an ‘obvious' defect in the trial proceedings,” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002). 2025However, the accused bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record, Quarterman at ¶ 16, and must show “an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” that constitutes “an ‘obvious' defect in the trial proceedings,” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Seaburn v. Seaburn, Unpublished Decision (9-6-2005)
green
1 sentence2008Seaburn , supra at ¶ 47 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Williford
green
2 sentences2008See, also, State v. Thompson (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 1 , 10 , 528 N.E.2d 542 ; State v. Williford (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 247 , 253 , 551 N.E.2d 1279 (Resnick, J., dissenting). {¶ 23} Although appellant has not raised the issue of plain error in his assignments of error, this court will review them under the plain error standard. 2008See, also, State v. Thompson (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 1 , 10 , 528 N.E.2d 542 ; State v. Williford (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 247 , 253 , 551 N.E.2d 1279 (Resnick, J., dissenting). {¶ 23} Although appellant has not raised the issue of plain error in his assignments of error, this court will review them under the plain error standard. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Hous, Unpublished Decision (2-13-2004)
green
1 sentence2005App. No. 02CA116, 2004-Ohio-666 , at ¶ 12 . {¶ 68} We now turn to the issue of plain error. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Cooperrider
green
1 sentence1990The Supreme Court of Ohio, with regard to the issue of plain error and jury instructions held in State v. Cooperrider (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 226, at 227 , that: "Recently, in State v. Underwood, supra, this court had occasion to address the plain error issue. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.