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 2001–2025 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. Wilson, 22581 (2-6-2009)green1 sentence2025As Barber moved for acquittal during trial based on the State’s alleged failure to prove when the sexual abuse occurred, we review this issue only for plain error. {¶ 45} “A sufficiency of the evidence argument disputes whether the State has presented adequate evidence on each element of the offense to allow the case to go to the jury or sustain the verdict as a matter of law.” State v. Wilson, 2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vanculingreen1 sentence2025State v. Vanculin, 2012-Ohio-292, ¶15 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Keenangreen1 sentence2024State v. Keenan, 66 Ohio St.3d 402, 405 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law” “at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); accord Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 279 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 , 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013); Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 , citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (noting that for error to be plain, it must be obvious error under current law); State v. G.C., 10th Dist. 2019For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law” “at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); accord Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 279 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 , 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013); Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 , citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (noting that for error to be plain, it must be obvious error under current law); State v. G.C., 10th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law” “at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); accord Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 279 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 , 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013); Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 , citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (noting that for error to be plain, it must be obvious error under current law); State v. G.C., 10th Dist. 2019For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law” “at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); accord Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 279 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 , 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013); Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 , citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (noting that for error to be plain, it must be obvious error under current law); State v. G.C., 10th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomas (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2019Consequently, we may review this issue only for plain error. {¶ 67} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error establishes (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error is a plain or “‘an “obvious” ADAMS, 17CA1056 27 defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected t 2019Consequently, we may review this issue only for plain error. {¶ 67} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error establishes (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error is a plain or “‘an “obvious” ADAMS, 17CA1056 27 defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected t | 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. Thompkins
red
1 sentence2025As Barber moved for acquittal during trial based on the State’s alleged failure to prove when the sexual abuse occurred, we review this issue only for plain error. {¶ 45} “A sufficiency of the evidence argument disputes whether the State has presented adequate evidence on each element of the offense to allow the case to go to the jury or sustain the verdict as a matter of law.” State v. Wilson, 2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Olano
red
2 sentences2019For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law” “at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); accord Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 279 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 , 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013); Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 , citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (noting that for error to be plain, it must be obvious error under current law); State v. G.C., 10th Dist. 2019For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law” “at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); accord Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 279 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 , 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013); Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 , citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (noting that for error to be plain, it must be obvious error under current law); State v. G.C., 10th Dist. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Barnes
green
2 sentences2019Consequently, we may review this issue only for plain error. {¶ 67} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error establishes (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error is a plain or “‘an “obvious” ADAMS, 17CA1056 27 defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected t 2019Consequently, we may review this issue only for plain error. {¶ 67} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error establishes (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error is a plain or “‘an “obvious” ADAMS, 17CA1056 27 defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected t | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Rogers
green
2 sentences2019Consequently, we may review this issue only for plain error. {¶ 67} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error establishes (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error is a plain or “‘an “obvious” ADAMS, 17CA1056 27 defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected t 2019Consequently, we may review this issue only for plain error. {¶ 67} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error establishes (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error is a plain or “‘an “obvious” ADAMS, 17CA1056 27 defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected t | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Quarterman (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2016Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, at ¶ 15-16 . 2016Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, at ¶ 15-16 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Williams
green
2 sentences2011Crim.R. 52(B); In re Williams (1997), 116 Ohio App.3d 237, 241 , 687 N.E.2d 507 . 2011Crim.R. 52(B); In re Williams (1997), 116 Ohio App.3d 237, 241 , 687 N.E.2d 507 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Morgan
green
1 sentence2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.