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 1993–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Disciplinary Counsel v. Gaulgreen2 sentences2024See Gaul, 2023-Ohio-4751, at ¶ 23-25 (judge’s “demeaning use of the word ‘brother’ ” when referring to a Black defendant appearing before him supported a violation of Jud.Cond.R. 2.3(B)). {¶ 105} Therefore, we find that Hoover committed violations of Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.2., and 2.3(B) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d). 2024See Gaul, 2023-Ohio-4751, at ¶ 23-25 (judge’s “demeaning use of the word ‘brother’” when referring to a Black defendant appearing before him supported a violation of Jud.Cond.R. 2.3(B)). {¶ 105} Therefore, we find that Hoover committed violations of Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.2, and 2.3(B) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d). | 2 | 2 |
Batson v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2025It insists that there was no systematic preclusion or disparate treatment of minorities from the jury panel and there was a legitimate concern about Juror No. 12’s qualifications as a juror.2 {¶ 76} In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 85-86 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that a defendant has “the right to be tried by a jury whose members are selected pursuant to nondiscriminatory criteria.” This right is violated where the prosecution challenges potential jurors based only on their race or on the assumption that as a group, Black jurors are unable to be impartial in considering a 2025Id. at 89 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jenksred1 sentence2024See Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 at paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Widnergreen2 sentences1993See State v. Widner (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 188 , 22 O.O.3d 430 , 429 N.E.2d 1065 . 1993See State v. Widner (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 188 , 22 O.O.3d 430 , 429 N.E.2d 1065 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bridgemangreen2 sentences1993See State v. Bridgeman (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 9 O.O.3d 401 , 381 N.E.2d 184 . 1993See State v. Bridgeman (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 9 O.O.3d 401 , 381 N.E.2d 184 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DeVore v. Black
green
1 sentence2021The court of appeals granted Black’s motion and dismissed the complaint. 2021-Ohio-198, ¶ 12 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.