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.
53 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1977–2026 14 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. Bondgreen2 sentences2026Because Normile did not object to the alleged hearsay statements, he waived all but plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) and bears the burden of establishing that error on appeal.2 State v. Bond, 2022-Ohio-4150, ¶ 7 (“The main 2 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.” Under the plain-error standard, the defendant must show that “‘but for a plain or obvious error, the distinction between plain-error review, which is the standard employed when a defendant failed to object at trial 2026State v. Bond, 2022-Ohio-4150, ¶ 7 (“The main distinction between plain-error review, which is the standard employed when a [party] failed to object at trial, and harmless- error review, which is employed when a [party] did object, is the party that bears the burden.”). | 3 | 3 |
State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Geauga County Court of Common Pleasgreen2 sentences2006Plain Dealer, 90 Ohio St.3d at 85, 734 N.E.2d 1214 . {¶ 28} Notwithstanding Judge Floyd’s affidavit to the contrary, the entries she submitted as part of her evidence in this case establish a pattern in which she granted motions to close delinquency proceedings without hearing any evidence or making any findings, simply because media opposition had been withdrawn. 2006Plain Dealer, 90 Ohio St.3d at 85, 734 N.E.2d 1214 . {¶ 28} Notwithstanding Judge Floyd’s affidavit to the contrary, the entries she submitted as part of her evidence in this case establish a pattern in which she granted motions to close delinquency proceedings without hearing any evidence or making any findings, simply because media opposition had been withdrawn. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Dorangreen2 sentences2024R.C. 2901.05(A); State v. Doran, 5 Ohio St.3d 187, 193-194 (1983); State v. Marquand, 2014-Ohio-698, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.) (“Because the defense of entrapment is an affirmative defense, the burden of production and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defendant.”). 1991Id. at 193-194 , 5 OBR at 410, 449 N.E.2d at 1300 . | 1 | 3 |
Durham v. Anka Research Ltd.green2 sentences1999Durham , at 244. 1999Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Venturagreen1 sentence2026Miller at ¶ 24 ; accord State v. Ventura, 2024-Ohio-498, ¶ 22 (9th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Allbritaingreen1 sentence2026State v. Allbritain, 2020-Ohio-2963, ¶ 27 (5th Dist.) (“An appellant waives a Crim.R. 16(B) issue for all but plain error if appellant did not preserve the issue for appellate review.”); State v. Bond, 2022- Ohio-4150, ¶ 7 (“The main distinction between plain-error review, which is the standard employed when a defendant failed to object at trial, and harmless-error review, which is employed when a defendant did object, is the party that bears the burden.”). | 1 | 1 |
Kolenic v. Kolenicgreen2 sentences2024“After the moving party proves a violation, the nonmovant bears the burden of establishing a defense for noncompliance.” Id. at ¶ 21, citing Martin. {¶ 18} “‘Failure to pay court-ordered child support…constitutes civil contempt.’” Kolenic v. Kolenic, 2018-Ohio-1106, ¶ 19 (11th Dist.), quoting Dilley v. Dilley, 2013- Ohio-4095, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.) “Once a person seeking contempt has demonstrated a defendant’s failure to pay, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove his or her inability to pay.’” Id., quoting Smith v. Smith, 2013-Ohio-4101, ¶ 41 . {¶ 19} An appellate court reviews cont 2024“After the moving party proves a violation, the nonmovant bears the burden of establishing a defense for noncompliance.” Id. at ¶ 21, citing Martin. {¶ 18} “‘Failure to pay court-ordered child support…constitutes civil contempt.’” Kolenic v. Kolenic, 2018-Ohio-1106, ¶ 19 (11th Dist.), quoting Dilley v. Dilley, 2013- Ohio-4095, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.) “Once a person seeking contempt has demonstrated a defendant’s failure to pay, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove his or her inability to pay.’” Id., quoting Smith v. Smith, 2013-Ohio-4101, ¶ 41 . {¶ 19} An appellate court reviews cont | 1 | 1 |
Lemley v. Kaisergreen1 sentence2024Pales v. Fedor, 2018-Ohio-2056, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.), citing Lemley v. Kaiser, 6 Ohio St.3d 258, 263-264 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Pales v. Fedorgreen1 sentence2024Pales v. Fedor, 2018-Ohio-2056, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.), citing Lemley v. Kaiser, 6 Ohio St.3d 258, 263-264 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Marquandgreen1 sentence2024R.C. 2901.05(A); State v. Doran, 5 Ohio St.3d 187, 193-194 (1983); State v. Marquand, 2014-Ohio-698, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.) (“Because the defense of entrapment is an affirmative defense, the burden of production and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defendant.”). | 1 | 1 |
In re Adoption of P.L.H. (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2022See In re Adoption of P.L.H., 151 Ohio St.3d 554 , 2017-Ohio-5824 , 91 N.E.3d 698 , ¶ 32 (determining that the party invoking an exception to the parental-consent requirement carries the burden of establishing the exception by clear and convincing evidence). | 1 | 1 |
Waldmann v. Waldmanngreen2 sentences2021See Waldmann v. Waldmann, 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 , 358 N.E.2d 521 (1976) (the burden of establishing a privilege rests upon the party seeking protection). 2021See Waldmann v. Waldmann, 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 , 358 N.E.2d 521 (1976) (the burden of establishing a privilege rests upon the party seeking protection). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fordgreen1 sentence2019Summit No. 28504, 2017-Ohio-9294, ¶ 10 (“[T]he appellant bears the burden of establishing error on appeal.”). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Palmergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Matthewsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories
green
2 sentences2018Furthermore, “ ‘[i]t is the appellant's duty to transmit the [record] to the court of appeals. * * * This duty falls to the appellant because the appellant has the burden of establishing error in the trial court.’ ” Bailey at ¶ 57; citing Dalton at ¶ 2; citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980) (internal citations omitted). {¶13} As this Court has further explained in Wall v. Wall, 4th Dist. 2018Furthermore, “ ‘[i]t is the appellant's duty to transmit the [record] to the court of appeals. * * * This duty falls to the appellant because the appellant has the burden of establishing error in the trial court.’ ” Bailey at ¶ 57; citing Dalton at ¶ 2; citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980) (internal citations omitted). {¶13} As this Court has further explained in Wall v. Wall, 4th Dist. | 12 | 2000–2018 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2018Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), citing McMann v. Richardson , 397 U.S. 759 , 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970) ; State v. Corrothers , 8th Dist. 2018Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), citing McMann v. Richardson , 397 U.S. 759 , 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970) ; State v. Corrothers , 8th Dist. | 3 | 1999–2018 |
Martin v. Martin
green
2 sentences2024“After the moving party proves a violation, the nonmovant bears the burden of establishing a defense for noncompliance.” Id., citing Martin. {¶ 31} We reviews contempt orders for an abuse of discretion. 2022Id. {¶ 16} We review contempt orders for abuse of discretion. | 2 | 2022–2024 |
McMann v. Richardson
green
2 sentences2018Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), citing McMann v. Richardson , 397 U.S. 759 , 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970) ; State v. Corrothers , 8th Dist. 2018Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), citing McMann v. Richardson , 397 U.S. 759 , 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970) ; State v. Corrothers , 8th Dist. | 2 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Martin
red
2 sentences2004Martin , 21 Ohio St.3d at 93 ; R.C. 2901.05 (A). 1999State v. Lesley (Feb. 4, 1994), Lucas App. No. L-92-389, unreported, citing State v. Martin (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 91 . | 2 | 1999–2004 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1999Id., citing State v. Smith (1985). 17 Ohio St.3d 98 , 100 ; State v. Arvanitis (1986), 336 Ohio App.3d 213 , 219 ; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 . 1995Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d at 100 , 17 OBR at 220-221, 477 N.E.2d at 1130-1131 ; State v. Arvanitis (1986), 36 Ohio App.3d 213, 219 , 522 N.E.2d 1089, 1095 . | 2 | 1995–1999 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1977State v. Robinson, supra. *249 We also note that nowhere in its criminal code does Ohio adopt either of the other two alternatives. 1977This court, on July 21, 1976, decided in State v. Robinson (1976), 47 Ohio St. 2d 103 , that in a criminal case involving the affirmative defense of self-defense the defendant does not have the burden of establishing such defense by a preponderance of the evidence, but only has the burden of going forward with evidence of a nature and quality sufficient to raise that defense. | 2 | 1977–1977 |
In re Adoption of Holcomb
green
1 sentence2025Id.; In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 , (1985). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Smith v. Smith
green
1 sentence2024“After the moving party proves a violation, the nonmovant bears the burden of establishing a defense for noncompliance.” Id. at ¶ 21, citing Martin. {¶ 18} “‘Failure to pay court-ordered child support…constitutes civil contempt.’” Kolenic v. Kolenic, 2018-Ohio-1106, ¶ 19 (11th Dist.), quoting Dilley v. Dilley, 2013- Ohio-4095, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.) “Once a person seeking contempt has demonstrated a defendant’s failure to pay, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove his or her inability to pay.’” Id., quoting Smith v. Smith, 2013-Ohio-4101, ¶ 41 . {¶ 19} An appellate court reviews cont | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Adoption of H.P.
green
1 sentence2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Crawford
neutral
1 sentence2019Scioto No. 16CA3778, 2018-Ohio-2166, ¶ 12 , quoting State v. Bailey, 4th Dist. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Murphy v. Carrollton Manufacturing Co.
green
1 sentence2019Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 585, 591 . {¶ 64} T.K., as the party asserting the affirmative defense of entrapment, had the burden of establishing that defense by a preponderance of the evidence. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Smithberger
neutral
1 sentence2018Smithberger, 2017-Ohio-8015 at ¶ 9 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences2018State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 , 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980). {¶17} A community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, and the state does not have the burden of establishing a violation with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 2018State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 , 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980). {¶17} A community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, and the state does not have the burden of establishing a violation with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences2018Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 454-455, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 2032, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). {¶ 7} Two exceptions are presented in this case. 2018Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 454-455, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 2032, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). {¶ 7} Two exceptions are presented in this case. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Evans v. Summit Behavorial Healthcare
green
1 sentence2018No. 15AP-241, 2016-Ohio-5857, ¶ 24 , quoting Shaffer v. OhioHealth Corp., 10th Dist. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Schutz v. Schutz
green
1 sentence2018Schutz v. Schutz, 2017-Ohio-695 , 85 N.E.3d 481 , ¶ 52 (2d Dist.), citing Wolf v. Wolf, 1st Dist. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Shaffer v. Ohiohealth Corp., Unpublished Decision (1-8-2004) green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Wilson v. Barnesville Hospital green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Braxton green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Arvanitis green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Gath green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.