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 1 courts 1999–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sowdersgreen2 sentences2007State v. Sowders (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 143 , 447 N.E.2d 118 , State v. Unger (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 65 , 67 , 423 N.E.2d 1078 [ 21 O.O.3d 41 ]; State v. Bayless (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 73 , 101 , 357 N.E.2d 1035 [ 2 O.O.3d 249 ]. *Page 7 {¶ 24} Further, the Ohio Supreme Court has refrained from adopting a mechanical test to determine when a trial court has abused its discretion in granting or denying a motion for a continuance; instead, it has endorsed the use of a balancing test which takes cognizance of all competing considerations. 2007State v. Sowders (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 143 , 447 N.E.2d 118 , State v. Unger (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 65 , 67 , 423 N.E.2d 1078 [ 21 O.O.3d 41 ]; State v. Bayless (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 73 , 101 , 357 N.E.2d 1035 [ 2 O.O.3d 249 ]. *Page 7 {¶ 24} Further, the Ohio Supreme Court has refrained from adopting a mechanical test to determine when a trial court has abused its discretion in granting or denying a motion for a continuance; instead, it has endorsed the use of a balancing test which takes cognizance of all competing considerations. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estelle v. Williams
green
2 sentences2018Instead, they have recognized that the particular evil proscribed is compelling a defendant, against his will, to be tried in jail attire.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 507 . 2012Instead, they have recognized that the particular evil proscribed is compelling a defendant, against his will, to be tried in jail attire.” Id. at 507 . | 2 | 2012–2018 |
State v. Unger
green
2 sentences2007State v. Sowders (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 143 , 447 N.E.2d 118 , State v. Unger (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 65 , 67 , 423 N.E.2d 1078 [ 21 O.O.3d 41 ]; State v. Bayless (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 73 , 101 , 357 N.E.2d 1035 [ 2 O.O.3d 249 ]. *Page 7 {¶ 24} Further, the Ohio Supreme Court has refrained from adopting a mechanical test to determine when a trial court has abused its discretion in granting or denying a motion for a continuance; instead, it has endorsed the use of a balancing test which takes cognizance of all competing considerations. 2007State v. Sowders (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 143 , 447 N.E.2d 118 , State v. Unger (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 65 , 67 , 423 N.E.2d 1078 [ 21 O.O.3d 41 ]; State v. Bayless (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 73 , 101 , 357 N.E.2d 1035 [ 2 O.O.3d 249 ]. *Page 7 {¶ 24} Further, the Ohio Supreme Court has refrained from adopting a mechanical test to determine when a trial court has abused its discretion in granting or denying a motion for a continuance; instead, it has endorsed the use of a balancing test which takes cognizance of all competing considerations. | 2 | 1999–2007 |
State v. Bayless
green
2 sentences2007State v. Sowders (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 143 , 447 N.E.2d 118 , State v. Unger (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 65 , 67 , 423 N.E.2d 1078 [ 21 O.O.3d 41 ]; State v. Bayless (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 73 , 101 , 357 N.E.2d 1035 [ 2 O.O.3d 249 ]. *Page 7 {¶ 24} Further, the Ohio Supreme Court has refrained from adopting a mechanical test to determine when a trial court has abused its discretion in granting or denying a motion for a continuance; instead, it has endorsed the use of a balancing test which takes cognizance of all competing considerations. 2007State v. Sowders (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 143 , 447 N.E.2d 118 , State v. Unger (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 65 , 67 , 423 N.E.2d 1078 [ 21 O.O.3d 41 ]; State v. Bayless (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 73 , 101 , 357 N.E.2d 1035 [ 2 O.O.3d 249 ]. *Page 7 {¶ 24} Further, the Ohio Supreme Court has refrained from adopting a mechanical test to determine when a trial court has abused its discretion in granting or denying a motion for a continuance; instead, it has endorsed the use of a balancing test which takes cognizance of all competing considerations. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.