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 2 courts 2003–2025 2 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. Barnesgreen2 sentences2020A court will find plain error only when (1) there was an error, (2) the error was "plain," i.e., obvious, and (3) the error "affected substantial rights." State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , ¶ 217, citing State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002). 2020A court will find plain error only when (1) there was an error, (2) the error was "plain," i.e., obvious, and (3) the error "affected substantial rights." Tench, 2018-Ohio-5205 , at ¶ 217, citing Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 . | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tench (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2020A court will find plain error only when (1) there was an error, (2) the error was "plain," i.e., obvious, and (3) the error "affected substantial rights." State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , ¶ 217, citing State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002). 2020A court will find plain error only when (1) there was an error, (2) the error was "plain," i.e., obvious, and (3) the error "affected substantial rights." Tench, 2018-Ohio-5205 , at ¶ 217, citing Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 . | 3 | 2020–2025 |
State v. Rogers
green
2 sentences2018State v. Rogers , 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860 , ¶ 28. {¶ 273} A court will find plain error only when "(1) there was an error or deviation from a legal rule, (2) the error was plain *1078 and obvious, and (3) the error affected the outcome of the trial." State v. Mohamed , 151 Ohio St.3d 320 , 2017-Ohio-7468 , 88 N.E.3d 935 , ¶ 26. 2018State v. Rogers , 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860 , ¶ 28. {¶ 273} A court will find plain error only when "(1) there was an error or deviation from a legal rule, (2) the error was plain *1078 and obvious, and (3) the error affected the outcome of the trial." State v. Mohamed , 151 Ohio St.3d 320 , 2017-Ohio-7468 , 88 N.E.3d 935 , ¶ 26. | 3 | 2018–2020 |
State v. Tench
green
2 sentences2021No. 18AP-630, 2020-Ohio-462, ¶ 32 , quoting State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , ¶ 217. 2020A court will find plain error only when (1) there was an error, (2) the error was "plain," i.e., obvious, and (3) the error "affected substantial rights." State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , ¶ 217, citing State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002). | 2 | 2020–2021 |
State v. Mohamed (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2019"A court will find plain error only when '(1) there was an error or deviation from a legal rule, (2) the error was plain and obvious, and (3) the error affected the outcome of the trial.' " State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 , 2018-Ohio- 493, ¶ 273, quoting State v. Mohamed, 151 Ohio St.3d 320 , 2017-Ohio-7468 , ¶ 26. 2018State v. Rogers , 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860 , ¶ 28. {¶ 273} A court will find plain error only when "(1) there was an error or deviation from a legal rule, (2) the error was plain *1078 and obvious, and (3) the error affected the outcome of the trial." State v. Mohamed , 151 Ohio St.3d 320 , 2017-Ohio-7468 , 88 N.E.3d 935 , ¶ 26. | 2 | 2018–2019 |
State v. Young
green
1 sentence2021No. 18AP-630, 2020-Ohio-462, ¶ 32 , quoting State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , ¶ 217. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Quarterman (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2020State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22 (specifying third prong employs "the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims"). "[T]he accused bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record." Id., citing State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio- Nos. 18AP-630 and 18AP-631 11 4034, ¶ 16. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Beasley
green
1 sentence2019"A court will find plain error only when '(1) there was an error or deviation from a legal rule, (2) the error was plain and obvious, and (3) the error affected the outcome of the trial.' " State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 , 2018-Ohio- 493, ¶ 273, quoting State v. Mohamed, 151 Ohio St.3d 320 , 2017-Ohio-7468 , ¶ 26. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Clayton
green
2 sentences2018Plain error should be noticed only " 'with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.' " State v. Clayton , 62 Ohio St.2d 45 , 47, 402 N.E.2d 1189 (1980), quoting State v. Long , 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. 2018Plain error should be noticed only " 'with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.' " State v. Clayton , 62 Ohio St.2d 45 , 47, 402 N.E.2d 1189 (1980), quoting State v. Long , 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Long
green
2 sentences2018Plain error should be noticed only " 'with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.' " State v. Clayton , 62 Ohio St.2d 45 , 47, 402 N.E.2d 1189 (1980), quoting State v. Long , 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. 2018Plain error should be noticed only " 'with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.' " State v. Clayton , 62 Ohio St.2d 45 , 47, 402 N.E.2d 1189 (1980), quoting State v. Long , 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Nicholas
green
1 sentence2003A court will find plain error, however, only if "it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise." State v. Nicholas (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 431 , 436 . {¶ 102} The following are statements which counsel did not object to below but now challenges: (1) Mark DeLorean's characterization of the defendant's attempt to buy a car with a sight draft as evil; (2) Detective Favre's discussion explaining the Redemptionist theory to the jury and his characterization of the theory as evil; (3) Detective Favre's characterization of a sight draft submitted to t | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.