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 1999–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 480 . 2003The transcripts of the hearing on the motion to dismiss and the in-chambers conference on the day of trial provide sufficient evidence of a parole holder." Id. at 482 . {¶ 34} In the present case, the record indicates that defense counsel acknowledged to the trial court that "[t]he federal courts * * * did put a holder on him[,]" and that "the holder was on him two days prior to him being charged on this case." (Tr. | 2 | 2003–2005 |
State v. Cook
green
2 sentences1999State v. Cook, supra. The transcripts of the hearing reveal the trial court considered the statutory factors prior to making its determination. 1999State v. Cook, supra. The transcripts of the hearing reveal the trial court considered the statutory factors prior to making its determination. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories
green
2 sentences2014“When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm.” Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980); State v. Whitaker, 4th Dist. 2014“When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm.” Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980); State v. Whitaker, 4th Dist. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Franklin Township v. Village of Marble Cliff
green
1 sentence2003Franklin Twp. v. Marble Cliff (1982), 4 Ohio App.3d 213 , 216 . | 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.