6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wallace v. Fergusongreen1 sentence2026(Brief of Appellant at 5.) White Oak has not filed a brief in response. {¶ 6} “When reviewing an appeal from the trial court’s ruling on objections to a magistrate's decision, this Court must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in reaching its decision.” Wallace v. Ferguson, 2012-Ohio-4839, ¶ 23 (5th Dist.), No. 25AP-473 4 citing Wade v. Wade, 113 Ohio App.3d 414, 419 (11th Dist. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Wade v. Wadegreen1 sentence2026(Brief of Appellant at 5.) White Oak has not filed a brief in response. {¶ 6} “When reviewing an appeal from the trial court’s ruling on objections to a magistrate's decision, this Court must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in reaching its decision.” Wallace v. Ferguson, 2012-Ohio-4839, ¶ 23 (5th Dist.), No. 25AP-473 4 citing Wade v. Wade, 113 Ohio App.3d 414, 419 (11th Dist. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Silveous v. Renschgreen2 sentences2016Further, “[i]f the testimony of the missing witnesses would have been merely cumulative, then the witness would not naturally be produced by the state, and the requested instruction would not be appropriate.” Id.; see also Silveous v. Rensch, 20 Ohio St.2d 82 , 253 N.E.2d 758 (1969). {¶49} In this case, Porter failed to request a missing witness instruction and has forfeited all but plain error. 2016Further, “[i]f the testimony of the missing witnesses would have been merely cumulative, then the witness would not naturally be produced by the state, and the requested instruction would not be appropriate.” Id.; see also Silveous v. Rensch, 20 Ohio St.2d 82 , 253 N.E.2d 758 (1969). {¶49} In this case, Porter failed to request a missing witness instruction and has forfeited all but plain error. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eastley v. Volkman
green
1 sentence2026(See Mag.’s Decision at 1.) {¶ 8} Ms. Glenn also contends that “key witnesses were absent from trial.” (Brief of Appellant at 16.) She specifically argues that the testimony of David Kuhar and Kevin Meyer—respectively, the mechanic who handled the repair of her auto, and the service adviser who her interactions with White Oak—were required to be present and testify, and that “[a]ccording to the missing witness rule, it can be inferred that their testimony would be unfavorable, which is why they were not present.” Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Felder, Unpublished Decision (10-12-2006)
green
1 sentence2006Id. {¶ 48} Bell first complains about the trial court's failure to give a missing witness instruction. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Carter
green
1 sentence2003State v. Carter (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 558 ("Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance is to be highly deferential, and reviewing courts must refrain from second-guessing the strategic decisions of trial counsel"). {¶ 51} With respect to appellant's contention that counsel should have requested a missing witness instruction to the jury, the two requirements which must be met for a missing witness instruction are as follows: the witness in question must be within the particular power of a party to produce and the testimony of that witness would elucidate the transaction. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Daugherty
green
1 sentence1998As one court held when considering the prosecution's failure to call an officer to testify, an adverse inference is warranted only if the defendant establishes as a matter of reasonable probability that the prosecution would not knowingly fail to call the witness unless the witness' testimony would be damaging ." (Emphasis added.) (Footnotes and section numbers omitted.) In State v. Daugherty (1971), 26 Ohio App.2d 159 , 163-64 , the appellate court noted that the proper rules to apply to determine whether the trial court erred in refusing to let the defense attorney argue the inferences to be | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence1977Id., at page 281. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.