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 2006–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Utility Service Partners, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen2 sentences2024Comm., 124 Ohio St.3d 284 , 2009-Ohio-6764 , 921 N.E.2d 1038, ¶ 39-40 (holding that a party’s failure to submit a contract as evidence was fatal to its claim based on the contract). {¶ 16} For these reasons, we deny Peterson’s motion to disqualify Nicodemus. 2024Comm., 124 Ohio St.3d 284 , 2009-Ohio-6764 , 921 N.E.2d 1038, ¶ 39-40 (holding that a party’s failure to submit a contract as evidence was fatal to its claim based on the contract). {¶ 16} For these reasons, we deny Peterson’s motion to disqualify Nicodemus. | 2 | 2 |
| 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
green
1 sentence2025First Assignment of Error: Sufficiency of the Evidence {¶17} Sufficiency of the evidence 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.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Thompkins, 1997-Ohio-52 , ¶ 23 (“[i]n essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy”). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2016Cuyahoga No. 101368, 2015-Ohio-420, ¶ 6 . {¶3} On June 22, 2015, we issued an order finding that the record on appeal was incomplete at the time that the Anders brief was filed due to Peterson’s original appellate counsel limiting his review to sentencing issues and neglecting to examine potential errors from Peterson’s plea hearing. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Beasley
green
2 sentences2015In Anderson, the Ohio Supreme Court reiterated the longstanding rule that “‘the only sentence which a trial judge may impose is that provided for by statute * * *.’” Id. at ¶ 12, quoting State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74, 75 , 471 N.E.2d 774 (1984), quoting Colegrove v. Burns, 175 Ohio St. 437 , 438, 195 N.E.2d 811 (1964). 2015In Anderson, the Ohio Supreme Court reiterated the longstanding rule that “‘the only sentence which a trial judge may impose is that provided for by statute * * *.’” Id. at ¶ 12, quoting State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74, 75 , 471 N.E.2d 774 (1984), quoting Colegrove v. Burns, 175 Ohio St. 437 , 438, 195 N.E.2d 811 (1964). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Barnhouse
green
2 sentences2015Application of Barnhouse and Anderson {¶10} Peterson further argues that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decisions in State v. Barnhouse, 102 Ohio St.3d 221 , 2004-Ohio-2492 , 808 N.E.2d 874 , and State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 , 2015-Ohio-2089 , 35 N.E.3d 512 , support his claim that the imposition of six months in jail, followed by six months in a community-based correctional facility, are not authorized under the law. 2015Application of Barnhouse and Anderson {¶10} Peterson further argues that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decisions in State v. Barnhouse, 102 Ohio St.3d 221 , 2004-Ohio-2492 , 808 N.E.2d 874 , and State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 , 2015-Ohio-2089 , 35 N.E.3d 512 , support his claim that the imposition of six months in jail, followed by six months in a community-based correctional facility, are not authorized under the law. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2015And given that these statutes expressly authorize a trial court to impose a combination of community controlled sanctions, which includes up to six months in jail and up to six months in a community-based correctional facility for the same offense, we find that the sentence is not contrary to law. {¶18} For the same reason, we find no basis to conclude that Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 , 2015-Ohio-2089 , 35 N.E.3d 512 , supports Peterson’s claim that the sentence cannot stand. 2015And given that these statutes expressly authorize a trial court to impose a combination of community controlled sanctions, which includes up to six months in jail and up to six months in a community-based correctional facility for the same offense, we find that the sentence is not contrary to law. {¶18} For the same reason, we find no basis to conclude that Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 , 2015-Ohio-2089 , 35 N.E.3d 512 , supports Peterson’s claim that the sentence cannot stand. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Jordan
green
1 sentence2012State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 , 2007-Ohio-3250 , 868 N.E.2d 961 , at the syllabus; State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 , 2004-Ohio-6085 , 817 N.E.2d 864 . –4– {¶ 7} Regarding Peterson’s challenge to the trial court’s advisement of postrelease control during his sentencing hearing, we note that we have not been provided with a transcript of the sentencing hearing. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Bezak
red
2 sentences2012State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 , 2007-Ohio-3250 , 868 N.E.2d 961 , at the syllabus; State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 , 2004-Ohio-6085 , 817 N.E.2d 864 . –4– {¶ 7} Regarding Peterson’s challenge to the trial court’s advisement of postrelease control during his sentencing hearing, we note that we have not been provided with a transcript of the sentencing hearing. 2012State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 , 2007-Ohio-3250 , 868 N.E.2d 961 , at the syllabus; State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 , 2004-Ohio-6085 , 817 N.E.2d 864 . –4– {¶ 7} Regarding Peterson’s challenge to the trial court’s advisement of postrelease control during his sentencing hearing, we note that we have not been provided with a transcript of the sentencing hearing. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Hamilton v. Ohio Savings Bank
green
1 sentence2006Hamilton v. Ohio Savings Bank (1998), 82 Ohio St. 3d 67 , 70 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.