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 2004–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| 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
2 sentences2012Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 10 , citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). 2012Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 10 , citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). | 2 | 2007–2012 |
State v. Froman (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2023We will consider the assignments in an order that facilitates our analysis. {¶ 27} Holland’s second assignment of error is as follows: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING GRUESOME AND DUPLICATIVE AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE ENTERED AS EVIDENCE. -13- {¶ 28} To be admissible, “the probative value of each photograph must outweigh the danger of prejudice to the defendant and, additionally, not be repetitive or cumulative in nature.” State v. Froman, 162 Ohio St.3d 435 , 2020-Ohio-4523 , 165 N.E.3d 1198 , ¶ 103, quoting State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252,259 , 513 N.E.2d 267 (1987). 2023We will consider the assignments in an order that facilitates our analysis. {¶ 27} Holland’s second assignment of error is as follows: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING GRUESOME AND DUPLICATIVE AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE ENTERED AS EVIDENCE. -13- {¶ 28} To be admissible, “the probative value of each photograph must outweigh the danger of prejudice to the defendant and, additionally, not be repetitive or cumulative in nature.” State v. Froman, 162 Ohio St.3d 435 , 2020-Ohio-4523 , 165 N.E.3d 1198 , ¶ 103, quoting State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252,259 , 513 N.E.2d 267 (1987). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Morales
green
2 sentences2023We will consider the assignments in an order that facilitates our analysis. {¶ 27} Holland’s second assignment of error is as follows: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING GRUESOME AND DUPLICATIVE AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE ENTERED AS EVIDENCE. -13- {¶ 28} To be admissible, “the probative value of each photograph must outweigh the danger of prejudice to the defendant and, additionally, not be repetitive or cumulative in nature.” State v. Froman, 162 Ohio St.3d 435 , 2020-Ohio-4523 , 165 N.E.3d 1198 , ¶ 103, quoting State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252,259 , 513 N.E.2d 267 (1987). 2023We will consider the assignments in an order that facilitates our analysis. {¶ 27} Holland’s second assignment of error is as follows: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING GRUESOME AND DUPLICATIVE AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE ENTERED AS EVIDENCE. -13- {¶ 28} To be admissible, “the probative value of each photograph must outweigh the danger of prejudice to the defendant and, additionally, not be repetitive or cumulative in nature.” State v. Froman, 162 Ohio St.3d 435 , 2020-Ohio-4523 , 165 N.E.3d 1198 , ¶ 103, quoting State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252,259 , 513 N.E.2d 267 (1987). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Wilson, 22581 (2-6-2009)
green
1 sentence2012Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 10 , citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Cook
green
2 sentences2008State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 409 , 700 N.E.2d 570 . “ ‘An enactment of the General Assembly is presumed to be constitutional, and before a court may declare it unconstitutional it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation and constitutional provisions are clearly incompatible.’ ” Id., quoting State ex rel. 2008State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 409 , 700 N.E.2d 570 . “ ‘An enactment of the General Assembly is presumed to be constitutional, and before a court may declare it unconstitutional it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation and constitutional provisions are clearly incompatible.’ ” Id., quoting State ex rel. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Thompkins
green
1 sentence2007"APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS FOR GROSS SEXUAL IMPOSITION ARE BASED UPON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE." {¶ 3} In his first assignment of error, Mullins claims that his convictions were based on insufficient evidence. {¶ 4} "'[Sufficiency' is a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law." State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 386 , 1997-Ohio-52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 , citing Black's Law Dictionary (6 th Ed.1990) 1433. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
University Hospital v. State Employment Relations Board
green
2 sentences2007Relations Bd. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 339, 343 , 587 N.E.2d 835 . {¶ 45} We will address appellant’s nine assignments of error in an order that facilitates our analysis. 2007Relations Bd. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 339, 343 , 587 N.E.2d 835 . {¶ 45} We will address appellant’s nine assignments of error in an order that facilitates our analysis. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2006Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege[.]" Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 478-479 , 86 U.S. 1602 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd.
neutral
1 sentence2004Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181 , 183 , 1997-Ohio-221 , 677 N.E.2d 343 ; Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64 , 65-66 , 375 N.E.2d 46 . {¶ 25} Motorists asserts three assignments of error on appeal, which we will address in an order that facilitates our analysis. {¶ 26} "2. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co.
green
2 sentences2004Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181 , 183 , 1997-Ohio-221 , 677 N.E.2d 343 ; Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64 , 65-66 , 375 N.E.2d 46 . {¶ 25} Motorists asserts three assignments of error on appeal, which we will address in an order that facilitates our analysis. {¶ 26} "2. 2004Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181 , 183 , 1997-Ohio-221 , 677 N.E.2d 343 ; Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64 , 65-66 , 375 N.E.2d 46 . {¶ 25} Motorists asserts three assignments of error on appeal, which we will address in an order that facilitates our analysis. {¶ 26} "2. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State ex rel. Grady v. State Employment Relations Board
green
2 sentences2004Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181 , 183 , 1997-Ohio-221 , 677 N.E.2d 343 ; Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64 , 65-66 , 375 N.E.2d 46 . {¶ 25} Motorists asserts three assignments of error on appeal, which we will address in an order that facilitates our analysis. {¶ 26} "2. 2004Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181 , 183 , 1997-Ohio-221 , 677 N.E.2d 343 ; Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64 , 65-66 , 375 N.E.2d 46 . {¶ 25} Motorists asserts three assignments of error on appeal, which we will address in an order that facilitates our analysis. {¶ 26} "2. | 1 | 2004–2004 |