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 1983–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brauchlergreen1 sentence2025See State v. Brauchler, 2024-Ohio-2994, ¶ 32-34 (5th Dist.) (a defendant’s refusal to participate in drug screening, and that person’s attempt to dilute a drug test with water, were “consistent with a demonstrated and articulable refusal to participate in the community control conditions imposed by the judge”); State v. Johnson, 2019-Ohio-376 , ¶ 14-15 (5th Dist.) (“Appellant’s use of methamphetamine . . . constituted a felony offense rather than a technical offense and the trial court was not required to cap her prison sentence”). {¶14} Under the terms of his community-control sentence, Mille | 1 | 1 |
Quint v. Lomakoskigreen1 sentence2025Quint, 2007-Ohio-4722, at ¶ 24-25 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mannahgreen1 sentence2020Fairfield No. 17-CA-54, 2018-Ohio-4219, ¶ 14 (“Had the legislature intended R.C. 2929.15 (B)(1)(c)(i) to apply to all violations of community control which were non-criminal in nature, it could have specifically stated so in the statute.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nevillegreen1 sentence2020Cuyahoga No. 106885, 2019-Ohio-151, ¶ 43-44, 48-49 (determining that a failure to report may be a technical violation in some instances, but several months of avoiding community control sanctions, i.e., failing to report at all, is not a mere technical violation); State v. Mannah, 5th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Yeaplesgreen2 sentences2013State v. Yeaples, 180 Ohio App.3d 720 , 2009-Ohio-184, ¶ 21 (3d Dist.) (citations omitted). {¶31} Once the defendant has established an adequate basis for the motion, the State must then demonstrate substantial compliance with the Ohio Department of Health regulations. 2013State v. Yeaples, 180 Ohio App.3d 720 , 2009-Ohio-184, ¶ 21 (3d Dist.) (citations omitted). {¶31} Once the defendant has established an adequate basis for the motion, the State must then demonstrate substantial compliance with the Ohio Department of Health regulations. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Cohen
green
2 sentences2012Under the *119 particular circumstances in this case, however, we hold that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances and justify an actual suspension. {¶ 13} In its discussion of the appropriate sanction in this case, the board cited Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cohen, 86 Ohio St.3d 100 , 712 N.E.2d 118 (1999), and Butler Cty. 2012Under the *119 particular circumstances in this case, however, we hold that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances and justify an actual suspension. {¶ 13} In its discussion of the appropriate sanction in this case, the board cited Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cohen, 86 Ohio St.3d 100 , 712 N.E.2d 118 (1999), and Butler Cty. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Klosterman
green
1 sentence2005Klosterman, supra. {¶ 20} We find that the failure to outline the connection between the suspect's conduct and the Defendant's computer is not a mere technical error as the State asserts. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Wilmer Dixon, on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. D. H. Holmes Company, Limited
green
1 sentence1983Holmes Co. (C.A. 5, 1978), 566 F.2d 571 , where a minor change in language was held to be a mere technical violation. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.