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 2 courts 1986–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gucciardo v. Stow-Munroe Falls City School District Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2016See Evid.R. 101(C)(7)." State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531, 533 (2000), citing State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636, 639 (1996). "[T]he Supreme Court of Ohio has found that whether an applicant for the privilege of expungement meets all of the requisite criteria for eligibility is determined not only by examining the plea ultimately entered, but rather by also reviewing the events that resulted in the original charges." State v. Norfolk, 10th Dist. 2006The state also directs our attention to State v. Simon (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 531 , 721 N.E.2d 1041 , in which the Supreme Court of Ohio held, "whether an applicant for the privilege of expungement meets all of the requisite criteria for eligibility is determined not only by examining the plea ultimately entered, but rather by also reviewing the events that resulted in the original charges." Id. at 533. {¶ 13} The state's position is well-taken. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Hamiltongreen1 sentence2016See Evid.R. 101(C)(7)." State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531, 533 (2000), citing State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636, 639 (1996). "[T]he Supreme Court of Ohio has found that whether an applicant for the privilege of expungement meets all of the requisite criteria for eligibility is determined not only by examining the plea ultimately entered, but rather by also reviewing the events that resulted in the original charges." State v. Norfolk, 10th 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Davis
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 274 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Norfolk, Unpublished Decision (2-1-2005)
neutral
1 sentence2016No. 04AP-614, 2005-Ohio-336, ¶ 11 , citing Simon at 533 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Simon
green
1 sentence2006The state also directs our attention to State v. Simon (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 531 , 721 N.E.2d 1041 , in which the Supreme Court of Ohio held, "whether an applicant for the privilege of expungement meets all of the requisite criteria for eligibility is determined not only by examining the plea ultimately entered, but rather by also reviewing the events that resulted in the original charges." Id. at 533. {¶ 13} The state's position is well-taken. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Blackburn v. Hamoudi
green
1 sentence2000Blackburn v. Hamoudi (1986), 29 Ohio App.3d 350 , 352 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Atlantis Development Corporation, Ltd. v. United States of America
green
1 sentence1986While the claim may be shown to be without merit, see Atlantis Development Corp., Ltd. v. United States (C.A.5, 1967), 379 F. 2d 818, at 827 , it is not required that the interest be proven or conclusively determined before the motion is granted. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.