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 1998–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boddie v. Connecticutgreen1 sentence2025Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 (1971) (“Due process does not, of course, require that the defendant in every civil case actually have a hearing on the merits. | 1 | 1 |
Houk v. Rossgreen1 sentence2025Summers & Vargas Co. v. Abboud, 2010-Ohio-5595 , ¶ 19 (8th Dist.) (“it is well-settled that a trial court’s proper grant of summary judgment does not violate the constitutional guarantee of due process of law”); Houk v. Ross, 34 Ohio St.2d 77, 83-84 (1973); Civ.R. 56(C). {¶ 17} Crisp also argues that his due process rights have been violated because no jury trial took place. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Omosun Children
green
2 sentences2014Appellant cites to In re Omosun Children, 106 Ohio App. 3d 813, 818 , 667 N.E. 2d 431 , where the Eleventh District stated, “Twenty-eight months of limbo in a juvenile dispositional hearing is, in our opinion, a per se due process violation, barring extraordinary circumstances.” Appellant argues that the delay from the July 25, 2011 filing of the motion for permanent custody to the decision on October 1, 2013, is similarly a per se denial of due process, and because any error has been waived by counsel’s failure to preserve the issue by filing a writ of procedendo, his counsel was ineffective. 2014Appellant cites to In re Omosun Children, 106 Ohio App. 3d 813, 818 , 667 N.E. 2d 431 , where the Eleventh District stated, “Twenty-eight months of limbo in a juvenile dispositional hearing is, in our opinion, a per se due process violation, barring extraordinary circumstances.” Appellant argues that the delay from the July 25, 2011 filing of the motion for permanent custody to the decision on October 1, 2013, is similarly a per se denial of due process, and because any error has been waived by counsel’s failure to preserve the issue by filing a writ of procedendo, his counsel was ineffective. | 3 | 1998–2014 |
State v. Powell
green
2 sentences2018State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 , 2012-Ohio-2577 , 971 N.E.2d 865 , ¶ 74. 2018State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 , 2012-Ohio-2577 , 971 N.E.2d 865 , ¶ 74. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Lewis, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2007)
green
1 sentence2016C-050989 and C-060010, 2007-Ohio-1485, at ¶ 39 . 18 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶55} Williams seems to argue that a per se due process violation results whenever there is a substitution of judges prior to sentencing. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Matter of Zhang
green
1 sentence2003In re Zhang (1995), 135 Ohio App.3d 350 , 354 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.