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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2022–2023 6 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. Freetagegreen2 sentences2023“While an appellate court may hear a constitutional challenge that has not been raised below, such an issue is evaluated only for plain error.” State v. Shannon, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2021-T-0049, 2022-Ohio-4160, ¶ 42 , citing State v. Freetage, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2020-P-0083, 2021-Ohio-4050, ¶ 34 . “‘When the court hears an appeal for plain error, it must presume the constitutionality of the statute at issue and will not invalidate it unless the challenger establishes that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Shannon at ¶ 42, quoting Freetage at ¶ 34. 2023Portage No. 2020-P-0083, 2021-Ohio-4050, ¶ 34 (“While an appellate court may hear a constitutional challenge that has not been raised below, such an issue is evaluated only for plain error.”). “‘When the court hears an appeal for plain error, it must presume the constitutionality of the statute at issue and will not invalidate it unless the challenger establishes that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Shannon at ¶ 42, quoting Freetage at ¶ 34. {¶10} With respect to the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law, the Ohio Supreme Court recently decided State v. Hacker, Ohio Sup | 1 | 5 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., State v. 6 Case Nos. 2022-T-0075 and 2022-T-0076 Moran, 2022-Ohio-3610 , 198 N.E.3d 922 (11th Dist.) and State v. Taylor, 2022-Ohio- 3611, 198 N.E.3d 956 (11th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morangreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. 6 Case Nos. 2022-T-0075 and 2022-T-0076 Moran, 2022-Ohio-3610 , 198 N.E.3d 922 (11th Dist.) and State v. Taylor, 2022-Ohio- 3611, 198 N.E.3d 956 (11th Dist.). 2023See, e.g., State v. 6 Case Nos. 2022-T-0075 and 2022-T-0076 Moran, 2022-Ohio-3610 , 198 N.E.3d 922 (11th Dist.) and State v. Taylor, 2022-Ohio- 3611, 198 N.E.3d 956 (11th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Shannon
neutral
1 sentence2023“While an appellate court may hear a constitutional challenge that has not been raised below, such an issue is evaluated only for plain error.” State v. Shannon, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2021-T-0049, 2022-Ohio-4160, ¶ 42 , citing State v. Freetage, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2020-P-0083, 2021-Ohio-4050, ¶ 34 . “‘When the court hears an appeal for plain error, it must presume the constitutionality of the statute at issue and will not invalidate it unless the challenger establishes that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Shannon at ¶ 42, quoting Freetage at ¶ 34. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2022It rejected its prior determination and found that, while Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), prevents the trial court from imposing a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum without the factual circumstances justifying the enhanced sentence first being found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, R.C. 2967.271 statutorily requires a court “to impose the minimum and maximum terms upon the offender being found guilty of the qualifying felony offense – similar to an offender being sentenced to life with the possibility of parole under the indefinite 2022It rejected its prior determination and found that, while Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), prevents the trial court from imposing a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum without the factual circumstances justifying the enhanced sentence first being found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, R.C. 2967.271 statutorily requires a court “to impose the minimum and maximum terms upon the offender being found guilty of the qualifying felony offense – similar to an offender being sentenced to life with the possibility of parole under the indefinite | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Delvallie
green
1 sentence2022“When the court hears an appeal for plain error, it must presume the constitutionality of the statute at issue and will not invalidate it unless the challenger establishes that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. {¶43} Shannon argues that Reagan Tokes violates the right to a trial by jury, noting that Delvallie found that it improperly removed the fact-finding duty from the jury and put it in the hands of the ODRC. {¶44} In the en banc Delvallie opinion, 2022-Ohio-470 , the Eighth District found that R.C. 2967.271(C) and (D) do not violate the right to a jury trial. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.