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 1978–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Stallingsgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 280 , 288- 289, 731 N.E.2d 159 (2000) (summarily rejecting argument that trial court erred by denying motion for 12 peremptory challenges); State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 (1988), paragraph two of the syllabus (numerical limit on peremptory challenges is reasonable regulation of right to challenge prospective jurors during voir dire). 22 January Term, 2014 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; Ohio Constitution, Article I, Sections 9, 10, and 16. {¶ 77} The United States Supreme Court and this court have long recognized that a defendant’s 2014See State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 280 , 288- 289, 731 N.E.2d 159 (2000) (summarily rejecting argument that trial court erred by denying motion for 12 peremptory challenges); State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 (1988), paragraph two of the syllabus (numerical limit on peremptory challenges is reasonable regulation of right to challenge prospective jurors during voir dire). 22 January Term, 2014 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; Ohio Constitution, Article I, Sections 9, 10, and 16. {¶ 77} The United States Supreme Court and this court have long recognized that a defendant’s | 1 | 1 |
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen1 sentence2012Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). “[W]here * * * no new matters are explored on redirect examination, it is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny defense counsel’s request to conduct a recross-examination.” Faulkner at 46 . {¶10} Tomlinson argues that the court abused its discretion by refusing to allow him to recross-examine the following seven witnesses: Gerald Forney, Patricia Thorn, Joshua Barr, Nancy Mundy, Brian Nida, Joseph Danzy, and Brian Boss. | 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. McSloy
green
2 sentences2024State v. Jones (1974), 110 Ariz. 546 , 521 P.2d 978 ; State v. Miles (1976), 97 Idaho 396 , 545 P.2d 484 ; State v. McSloy (1953), 127 Mont. 265 , 261 P.2d 663 ; State v. Fernandez (1924), 157 La. 149 , 102 So. 186 . 2024State v. Jones (1974), 110 Ariz. 546 , 521 P.2d 978 ; State v. Miles (1976), 97 Idaho 396 , 545 P.2d 484 ; State v. McSloy (1953), 127 Mont. 265 , 261 P.2d 663 ; State v. Fernandez (1924), 157 La. 149 , 102 So. 186 . | 2 | 1978–2024 |
State v. Fernandez
green
2 sentences2024State v. Jones (1974), 110 Ariz. 546 , 521 P.2d 978 ; State v. Miles (1976), 97 Idaho 396 , 545 P.2d 484 ; State v. McSloy (1953), 127 Mont. 265 , 261 P.2d 663 ; State v. Fernandez (1924), 157 La. 149 , 102 So. 186 . 2024State v. Jones (1974), 110 Ariz. 546 , 521 P.2d 978 ; State v. Miles (1976), 97 Idaho 396 , 545 P.2d 484 ; State v. McSloy (1953), 127 Mont. 265 , 261 P.2d 663 ; State v. Fernandez (1924), 157 La. 149 , 102 So. 186 . | 2 | 1978–2024 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2024State v. Jones (1974), 110 Ariz. 546 , 521 P.2d 978 ; State v. Miles (1976), 97 Idaho 396 , 545 P.2d 484 ; State v. McSloy (1953), 127 Mont. 265 , 261 P.2d 663 ; State v. Fernandez (1924), 157 La. 149 , 102 So. 186 . 2024State v. Jones (1974), 110 Ariz. 546 , 521 P.2d 978 ; State v. Miles (1976), 97 Idaho 396 , 545 P.2d 484 ; State v. McSloy (1953), 127 Mont. 265 , 261 P.2d 663 ; State v. Fernandez (1924), 157 La. 149 , 102 So. 186 . | 2 | 1978–2024 |
State v. Miles
green
2 sentences2024State v. Jones (1974), 110 Ariz. 546 , 521 P.2d 978 ; State v. Miles (1976), 97 Idaho 396 , 545 P.2d 484 ; State v. McSloy (1953), 127 Mont. 265 , 261 P.2d 663 ; State v. Fernandez (1924), 157 La. 149 , 102 So. 186 . 2024State v. Jones (1974), 110 Ariz. 546 , 521 P.2d 978 ; State v. Miles (1976), 97 Idaho 396 , 545 P.2d 484 ; State v. McSloy (1953), 127 Mont. 265 , 261 P.2d 663 ; State v. Fernandez (1924), 157 La. 149 , 102 So. 186 . | 2 | 1978–2024 |
State v. Faulkner
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Layman v. Binns
green
2 sentences2014See State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 280, 288-289 , 731 N.E.2d 159 (2000) (summarily rejecting argument that trial court erred by denying motion for 12 peremptory challenges); State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 (1988), paragraph two of the syllabus (numerical limit on peremptory challenges is reasonable regulation of right to challenge prospective jurors during voir dire). . 2014See State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 280 , 288- 289, 731 N.E.2d 159 (2000) (summarily rejecting argument that trial court erred by denying motion for 12 peremptory challenges); State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 (1988), paragraph two of the syllabus (numerical limit on peremptory challenges is reasonable regulation of right to challenge prospective jurors during voir dire). 22 January Term, 2014 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; Ohio Constitution, Article I, Sections 9, 10, and 16. {¶ 77} The United States Supreme Court and this court have long recognized that a defendant’s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Greer
green
2 sentences2014See State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 280, 288-289 , 731 N.E.2d 159 (2000) (summarily rejecting argument that trial court erred by denying motion for 12 peremptory challenges); State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 (1988), paragraph two of the syllabus (numerical limit on peremptory challenges is reasonable regulation of right to challenge prospective jurors during voir dire). . 2014See State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 280 , 288- 289, 731 N.E.2d 159 (2000) (summarily rejecting argument that trial court erred by denying motion for 12 peremptory challenges); State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 (1988), paragraph two of the syllabus (numerical limit on peremptory challenges is reasonable regulation of right to challenge prospective jurors during voir dire). 22 January Term, 2014 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; Ohio Constitution, Article I, Sections 9, 10, and 16. {¶ 77} The United States Supreme Court and this court have long recognized that a defendant’s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Perez
green
1 sentence2011State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 , 2009-Ohio-6170 , ¶140. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.