7 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2013 0 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. Headleygreen2 sentences2013See id. 2002See id. | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Childs
green
1 sentence2013Second, the indictment, “by identifying and defining the offense, * * * serves to protect the accused from future prosecutions for the same offense.” Id. {¶10} A trial court's decision allowing an amendment that changes the name or identity of the offense charged constitutes reversible error regardless of whether the accused can demonstrate prejudice. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Guenther, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2006)
green
1 sentence2013No. 05CA008663, 2006-Ohio-767, ¶ 50 , quoting State v. Honeycutt, 2d Dist. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Allied Trades Club, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
green
1 sentence2007Section 2, Title 18, U.S. Code; Reamer v. United States (C.A.6, 1955), 228 F.2d 906 ; Roberts v. United States (C.A.6, 1955), 226 F.2d 464 ." State v. Graven, supra, 52 Ohio St.2d at 115-116 , 369 N.E.2d 1205 , 1207-1208 . {¶ 66} A trial court's decision allowing an amendment that changes the name or identity of the offense charged constitutes reversible error regardless of whether the accused can demonstrate prejudice. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ira Coleman Roberts, Billy O'Niel Hughes v. The United States of America
green
1 sentence2007Section 2, Title 18, U.S. Code; Reamer v. United States (C.A.6, 1955), 228 F.2d 906 ; Roberts v. United States (C.A.6, 1955), 226 F.2d 464 ." State v. Graven, supra, 52 Ohio St.2d at 115-116 , 369 N.E.2d 1205 , 1207-1208 . {¶ 66} A trial court's decision allowing an amendment that changes the name or identity of the offense charged constitutes reversible error regardless of whether the accused can demonstrate prejudice. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Graven
green
2 sentences2007Section 2, Title 18, U.S. Code; Reamer v. United States (C.A.6, 1955), 228 F.2d 906 ; Roberts v. United States (C.A.6, 1955), 226 F.2d 464 ." State v. Graven, supra, 52 Ohio St.2d at 115-116 , 369 N.E.2d 1205 , 1207-1208 . {¶ 66} A trial court's decision allowing an amendment that changes the name or identity of the offense charged constitutes reversible error regardless of whether the accused can demonstrate prejudice. 2007Section 2, Title 18, U.S. Code; Reamer v. United States (C.A.6, 1955), 228 F.2d 906 ; Roberts v. United States (C.A.6, 1955), 226 F.2d 464 ." State v. Graven, supra, 52 Ohio St.2d at 115-116 , 369 N.E.2d 1205 , 1207-1208 . {¶ 66} A trial court's decision allowing an amendment that changes the name or identity of the offense charged constitutes reversible error regardless of whether the accused can demonstrate prejudice. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Greer
green
2 sentences2005State v. Greer, 66 Ohio St.2d at 148 , 20 O.O.3d at 163 , 420 N.E.2d at 988 ". {¶ 45} A trial court's decision allowing an amendment that changes the name or identity of the offense charged constitutes reversible error regardless of whether the accused can demonstrate prejudice. 2005State v. Greer, 66 Ohio St.2d at 148 , 20 O.O.3d at 163 , 420 N.E.2d at 988 ". {¶ 45} A trial court's decision allowing an amendment that changes the name or identity of the offense charged constitutes reversible error regardless of whether the accused can demonstrate prejudice. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.