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 1949–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Martingreen1 sentence2008The granting of a new trial "should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction." Martin at 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 . *Page 8 {¶ 30} We note that in addition to the evidence previously discussed, the jury heard appellant when he took the stand in his defense. | 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. Dehass
green
2 sentences2023State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶33} Appellant took the stand in his defense. 2023State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶33} Appellant took the stand in his defense. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Glander
neutral
2 sentences2006The consequence of the prosecution's failure to permit a defendant to inspect his statement is that if the defendant does not know or remember what is contained in the statement, he cannot knowingly and intelligently decide whether to take the witness stand and thus place his credibility at issue." State v. Glander (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 490 , 497 , 744 N.E.2d 265 (citations omitted). {¶ 64} Additionally, the record reveals that defendant did not file a motion to suppress the oral statement prior to the trial. 2006The consequence of the prosecution's failure to permit a defendant to inspect his statement is that if the defendant does not know or remember what is contained in the statement, he cannot knowingly and intelligently decide whether to take the witness stand and thus place his credibility at issue." State v. Glander (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 490 , 497 , 744 N.E.2d 265 (citations omitted). {¶ 64} Additionally, the record reveals that defendant did not file a motion to suppress the oral statement prior to the trial. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Grava v. Parkman Twp.
green
1 sentence2005Its claim did not "aris[e] out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action." Grava, supra, at 382, 1995-Ohio-331 , 653 N.E.2d 226 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Grava v. Parkman Township
green
1 sentence2005Its claim did not "aris[e] out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action." Grava, supra, at 382, 1995-Ohio-331 , 653 N.E.2d 226 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Dresher v. Burt
green
2 sentences2005Because res judicata did not bar Stand's claim against Ruyan for a fraudulent transfer, there were triable issues precluding summary judgment under Civ.R. 56. {¶ 22} Finally, the majority's statement, in paragraph 15, that "Stand failed to allege that any acts of fraud during the pendency of the first action were not discoverable," does not comport with the standard in Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280 , 296 , 662 N.E.2d 264 . 2005Because res judicata did not bar Stand's claim against Ruyan for a fraudulent transfer, there were triable issues precluding summary judgment under Civ.R. 56. {¶ 22} Finally, the majority's statement, in paragraph 15, that "Stand failed to allege that any acts of fraud during the pendency of the first action were not discoverable," does not comport with the standard in Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280 , 296 , 662 N.E.2d 264 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Fluellen
green
1 sentence2003State v. Fluellen (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 18 . {¶ 24} In this case, the defendant maintains that because the trial court denied his motion in limine to exclude evidence of his prior conviction, he was prevented from taking the stand in his defense. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2003State v. Wilson (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 216 ; State v. Elliott (Feb. 27, 1995), Highland App. No. 94CA836; State v. Daugherty (Dec. 30, 1993), Lucas App. No. L-92-126; State v. Hall (Sept. 30, 1988), Union App. No. 14-86-29. {¶ 25} We reject the notion that the trial court "prevented" the defendant from taking the stand in his defense. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Conway v. Conway
neutral
1 sentence1949In the case of Conway v. Conway, 288 Pacific 566 , upon which counsel for defendant rely heavily to secure a reversal of the judgment of the trial court, and in which it is claimed a statute similar to §11991 GC, was involved, “in an action for divorce and for alimony, the court made an allowance to plaintiff for herself of $200.00 per month, payable monthly until her death or remarriage.” In that case the supreme court of Kansas “held the allowance was void, and the court was authorized to strike it from the judgment on motion of defendant made after time for appeal had expired.” In that case | 1 | 1949–1949 |
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.