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 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Thompkinsred2 sentences2025Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law." State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). {¶ 11} Swogger challenges his convictions for harassment by inmate with a bodily substance in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A) which states: No person who is confined in a detention facility, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm another person, shall cause or attempt to cause the other person to come into contact with blood, semen, urine, feces, or another bodily substance by throwing the bodily substance at the other person, by expelling the bodily 2025Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law." State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). {¶ 11} Swogger challenges his convictions for harassment by inmate with a bodily substance in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A) which states: No person who is confined in a detention facility, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm another person, shall cause or attempt to cause the other person to come into contact with blood, semen, urine, feces, or another bodily substance by throwing the bodily substance at the other person, by expelling the bodily | 2 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2024“A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 (1984). {¶28} In this case, Lora N. Davis, Psy.D., Forensic Psychologist, of the Court Clinic evaluated Walton to determine if he was competent to stand trial and whether he was sane at the time of the offense. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Arenz, 06ca111 (8-17-2007)green1 sentence2020Licking No. 06CA111, 2007-Ohio-4283, ¶ 18 (“The results of the blood test are not necessary to establish a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a).”). | 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. Mayl
green
1 sentence2020State v. Mayl, 106 Ohio St.3d 207 , 2005-Ohio- 4629, ¶ 19 (noting that the results of a bodily substance test can be used to show impairment under Section 4511.19(A)(1)(a)); State v. Arenz, 5th Dist. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Myers
green
2 sentences1997In State v. Myers (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 190 , 55 O.O.2d 447 , 271 N.E.2d 245 , and in Kettering v. Hollen (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 232 , 18 O.O.3d 435 , 416 N.E.2d 598 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that absent a constitutional violation, a violation of a statutorily prescribed procedure would not lead to suppression of evidence at trial, unless there was a statutorily prescribed remedy. 1997In State v. Myers (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 190 , 55 O.O.2d 447 , 271 N.E.2d 245 , and in Kettering v. Hollen (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 232 , 18 O.O.3d 435 , 416 N.E.2d 598 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that absent a constitutional violation, a violation of a statutorily prescribed procedure would not lead to suppression of evidence at trial, unless there was a statutorily prescribed remedy. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
City of Kettering v. Hollen
green
2 sentences1997In State v. Myers (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 190 , 55 O.O.2d 447 , 271 N.E.2d 245 , and in Kettering v. Hollen (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 232 , 18 O.O.3d 435 , 416 N.E.2d 598 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that absent a constitutional violation, a violation of a statutorily prescribed procedure would not lead to suppression of evidence at trial, unless there was a statutorily prescribed remedy. 1997In State v. Myers (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 190 , 55 O.O.2d 447 , 271 N.E.2d 245 , and in Kettering v. Hollen (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 232 , 18 O.O.3d 435 , 416 N.E.2d 598 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that absent a constitutional violation, a violation of a statutorily prescribed procedure would not lead to suppression of evidence at trial, unless there was a statutorily prescribed remedy. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
City of Cincinnati v. Sand
green
2 sentences1993In Cincinnati v. Sand (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 79 , 72 O.O.2d 44 , 330 N.E.2d 908 , paragraph two of the syllabus reads as follows: “The results of a Breathalyzer test, administered pursuant to R.C. 4511.19, may only be admitted in evidence upon the affirmative establishment of facts supporting the following conditions: “a. 1993In Cincinnati v. Sand (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 79 , 72 O.O.2d 44 , 330 N.E.2d 908 , paragraph two of the syllabus reads as follows: “The results of a Breathalyzer test, administered pursuant to R.C. 4511.19, may only be admitted in evidence upon the affirmative establishment of facts supporting the following conditions: “a. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.