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 1994–2019 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. Sellardsgreen2 sentences2019State v. Henderson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87236, 2006-Ohio-5567, ¶ 12 . {¶9} “Ordinarily, precise times and dates are not essential elements of offenses.” State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 171 , 478 N.E.2d 781, 784 (1985). [I]f precise times and dates are not essential elements of the offense or offenses charged, omission of specific dates in an indictment or bill of particulars is without prejudice or constitutional consequence, provided that failure to provide times and dates does not materially deprive the defendant of an opportunity to prepare a defense. 2019State v. Henderson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87236, 2006-Ohio-5567, ¶ 12 . {¶9} “Ordinarily, precise times and dates are not essential elements of offenses.” State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 171 , 478 N.E.2d 781, 784 (1985). [I]f precise times and dates are not essential elements of the offense or offenses charged, omission of specific dates in an indictment or bill of particulars is without prejudice or constitutional consequence, provided that failure to provide times and dates does not materially deprive the defendant of an opportunity to prepare a defense. | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Royal v. Industrial Commissiongreen1 sentence2003Upon review, we find that the order at issue was sufficient to explain the basis for the exercise of continuing jurisdiction, and we thus disagree with the magistrate's determination that the commission did not provide a meaningful explanation of the nature of the error at issue on reconsideration. {¶ 14} We further note that the record does not suggest the interlocutory order was insufficient to allow the claimant "an opportunity to prepare a defense in advance." Royal, supra, at 100. | 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. Gingell
green
2 sentences1994In State v. Gingell (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 364 , 7 OBR 464, 455 N.E.2d 1066 , the Hamilton County Court of Appeals held that, if precise times and dates are not essential elements of the offense or offenses charged, omission of specific dates in an indictment or bill of particulars is without prejudice or constitutional consequence, provided that failure to provide times and dates does not materially deprive the defendant of an opportunity to prepare a defense. 1994In State v. Gingell (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 364 , 7 OBR 464, 455 N.E.2d 1066 , the Hamilton County Court of Appeals held that, if precise times and dates are not essential elements of the offense or offenses charged, omission of specific dates in an indictment or bill of particulars is without prejudice or constitutional consequence, provided that failure to provide times and dates does not materially deprive the defendant of an opportunity to prepare a defense. | 2 | 1994–2012 |
State v. Henderson, Unpublished Decision (10-26-2006)
green
1 sentence2019State v. Henderson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87236, 2006-Ohio-5567, ¶ 12 . {¶9} “Ordinarily, precise times and dates are not essential elements of offenses.” State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 171 , 478 N.E.2d 781, 784 (1985). [I]f precise times and dates are not essential elements of the offense or offenses charged, omission of specific dates in an indictment or bill of particulars is without prejudice or constitutional consequence, provided that failure to provide times and dates does not materially deprive the defendant of an opportunity to prepare a defense. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Culberson v. Culberson
green
2 sentences2014Id.; Culberson v. Culberson, 60 Ohio App.2d 304, 306 , 397 N.E.2d 1226 (1st Dist.1978). 2014Id.; Culberson v. Culberson, 60 Ohio App.2d 304, 306 , 397 N.E.2d 1226 (1st Dist.1978). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Frambach
green
2 sentences2012See R.C. 2941.08(B) and (C); R.C. 2941.26; Crim.R. 7(D); State v. Gingell, 7 Ohio App.3d 364 , 455 N.E.2d 1066 (1st Dist.1982); see also Cincinnati v. Woods, 322 N.E.2d 303 , 304 (1st Dist.1974)(explaining Crim.R. 7[D].) {¶20} Further, a judgment of conviction shall not be reversed because of a “variance between the allegations and the proof thereof unless the accused is misled or prejudiced thereby.” R.C. 2945.83(B); Crim.R. 33(E)(2); State v. Frambach, 81 Ohio App.3d 834, 846 , 612 N.E.2d 424 (9th Dist.1992). 2012See R.C. 2941.08(B) and (C); R.C. 2941.26; Crim.R. 7(D); State v. Gingell, 7 Ohio App.3d 364 , 455 N.E.2d 1066 (1st Dist.1982); see also Cincinnati v. Woods, 322 N.E.2d 303 , 304 (1st Dist.1974)(explaining Crim.R. 7[D].) {¶20} Further, a judgment of conviction shall not be reversed because of a “variance between the allegations and the proof thereof unless the accused is misled or prejudiced thereby.” R.C. 2945.83(B); Crim.R. 33(E)(2); State v. Frambach, 81 Ohio App.3d 834, 846 , 612 N.E.2d 424 (9th Dist.1992). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Stacy v. Van Coren
green
1 sentence2001Further, "waiver can be accomplished by acts or conduct as well as words." Van Curen , 18 Ohio St.2d at 190 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.