6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2009 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beer v. Griffith
green
2 sentences2009Beer v. Griffith (1978), 54 *Page 4 Ohio St.2d 440, 441-42, 377 N.E.2d 775 . 2007Beer v. Griffith (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 440 , 441-442 . | 3 | 2005–2009 |
State v. D'Ambrosio
green
2 sentences1997Under that standard, recusal is required “if the record indicates that, as a result of a prior proceeding, the judge formed an opinion as to facts at issue in a subsequent proceeding.” D’Ambrosio at 189 , 616 N.E.2d at 913 . 1997Under that standard, recusal is required “if the record indicates that, as a result of a prior proceeding, the judge formed an opinion as to facts at issue in a subsequent proceeding.” D'Ambrosio at 189, 616 N.E.2d at 913 . | 2 | 1997–1997 |
City of Maple Heights v. Redi Car Wash
green
1 sentence1990Redi Car Wash, supra. The trial court even indicated in its decision that "[dlefense counsel states that he understands his obligation and that he will not disclose confidential information through cross-examination or otherwise" Under such circumstance^ we find the disqualification of defense counsel to be an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.