long-recognized principle in Ohio

46 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 8 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
In Re Ettergreen ohioctapp · 1998 · cited in 29 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2000–2025 2 sentences 2025This rule “embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court’s attention to possible error when the error could have been corrected results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal.” In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484, 492 (1st Dist. 1998), citing Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121 (1997). 2025Cuyahoga No. 110541, 2021 WL 5446917 , 2021-Ohio- 4126, ¶ 23, quoting In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484, 492 , 731 N.E.2d 694 (1st Dist.1998) (“[t]he waiver under Juv.R. 40[E][3][b] embodies the long- recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error, by objection or otherwise, when the error could have been corrected, results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal”).	8	29
Goldfuss v. Davidsongreen ohio · 1997 · cited in 19 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1998–2025 2 sentences 2025This rule “embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court’s attention to possible error when the error could have been corrected results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal.” In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484, 492 (1st Dist. 1998), citing Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121 (1997). 2025“This rule ‘embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error when the error could have been corrected results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal.’” Matter of R.H. v. A.M., 2024-Ohio-4479, ¶ 17 (5th Dist.), quoting In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484, 492 (1st Dist. 1998). {¶10} “[T]he plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or publ	5	19
Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co.green ohio · 1996 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1998–2002 2 sentences 2002See Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 121 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 , 1103 ; accord Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co. (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 427 , 659 N.E.2d 1232 ; see, generally, In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d at 484 , 731 N.E.2d at 694 . 2002See Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 121 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 , 1103 ; accord Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co. (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 427 , 659 N.E.2d 1232 ; see, generally, In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d at 484 , 731 N.E.2d at 694 .	2	2
Chimel v. Californiared scotus · 1969 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1996–2005 2 sentences 2005Weeks v. United States (1914), 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 , Chimel v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 . 2005Weeks v. United States (1914), 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 , Chimel v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 .	1	3
In re K.P.R.green ohioctapp · 2011 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014 2 sentences 2014Before we address his argument, we must first determine whether he has waived it. {¶13} Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides that "[e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or conclusion of law * * * unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion under Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)." As this court has held, "This waiver under the rule embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court’s attention to possible error when the error could have been corrected results in a waiver of the issue 2014Before we address his argument, we must first determine whether he has waived it. {¶13} Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides that "[e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or conclusion of law * * * unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion under Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)." As this court has held, "This waiver under the rule embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court’s attention to possible error when the error could have been corrected results in a waiver of the issue	1	2
In re R.H. v. A.M.green ohioctapp · 2024 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025“This rule ‘embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error when the error could have been corrected results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal.’” Matter of R.H. v. A.M., 2024-Ohio-4479, ¶ 17 (5th Dist.), quoting In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484, 492 (1st Dist. 1998). {¶10} “[T]he plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or publ	1	1
In Re Harper, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2003)green ohioctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 2007See In re Harper , Montgomery App. No. 19948, 2003-Ohio-6666 , at ¶ 5 .	1	1
Ratcliff v. Dick Johnson School Townshipgreen ind · 1933 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003Hammond v. Ocean Shore Dev. (1913), 22 Cal.App. 167, 170 , 133 P. 978 ; see, also, Ratcliff v. Dick Johnson School Twp. (1933), 204 Ind. 525 , 185 N.E. 143 ; J.R. 2003Hammond v. Ocean Shore Dev. (1913), 22 Cal.App. 167, 170 , 133 P. 978 ; see, also, Ratcliff v. Dick Johnson School Twp. (1933), 204 Ind. 525 , 185 N.E. 143 ; J.R.	1	1
State v. Dehassgreen ohio · 1967 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 , syllabus; State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , 434 N.E.2d 1356 . 2001See State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 , syllabus; State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , 434 N.E.2d 1356 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

Case	Cited	Years
Goldfuss v. Davidson green ohio · 1997 2 sentences 2007R. 40(E)(3)(d) provides, "[a] party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion under this rule." The waiver under Juv.R. 40(E)(3)(d) "embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error, by objection or otherwise, when the error could have been corrected, results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal." In re Etter (1998), 134 Ohio App.3d 484 , 492 , citing Goldfuss v. Davidson , 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 121 , 1997-O 2007APPELLANT WAS GIVEN NO NOTICE THAT IT COULD SATISFY THE ELEMENT OF `PROVIDING CARE' UNDER THE PPLA STATUTE, AND THE COURT'S DEFINITION `BOOTSTRAPPED' APPELLANT'S CASE BY TREATING SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ELEMENTS MORE INTER-RELATED THAN THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED." {¶ 17} Juv.R. 40(E)(3)(d) provides, "[a] party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion under this rule." The waiver under Juv.R. 40(E)(3)(d) "embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial co	4	2003–2007
State v. Langlois, Unpublished Decision (6-6-2005) neutral ohioctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2005Langlois, supra, at ¶ 36 . 2005Langlois, supra, at ¶ 36 .	3	2005–2005
Weeks v. United States red · 1914 2 sentences 2005Weeks v. United States (1914), 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 , Chimel v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 . 2005Weeks v. United States (1914), 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 , Chimel v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 .	2	1996–2005
In re R.A. green ohioctapp · 2021 2 sentences 2022Cuyahoga No. 110541, 2021-Ohio-4126, ¶ 23 , quoting In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484, 492 (1st Dist.1998) ("[t]he waiver under Juv.R. 40[E][3][b] embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error, by objection or otherwise, when the error could have been corrected, results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal"). 2022Cuyahoga No. 110541, 2021-Ohio-4126, ¶ 23 , quoting In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484, 492 (1st Dist.1998) ("[t]he waiver under Juv.R. 40[E][3][b] embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error, by objection or otherwise, when the error could have been corrected, results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal").	1	2022–2022
In re M.R. neutral ohioctapp · 2018 1 sentence 2022CA2018-07-145 thru CA2018-07-147, 2018-Ohio-5047, ¶ 16 , quoting Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv). {¶ 16} "This rule 'embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error when the error could have been corrected results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal.'" In re R.A., 8th Dist.	1	2022–2022
United States v. Robinson green scotus · 1973 2 sentences 2018"Pursuant to a search incident to arrest, the police may conduct a full search of the arrestee's person, and that search is not limited to the discovery of weapons, but may include evidence of a crime as well." Id. , citing United States v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218 , 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973). 2018"Pursuant to a search incident to arrest, the police may conduct a full search of the arrestee's person, and that search is not limited to the discovery of weapons, but may include evidence of a crime as well." Id. , citing United States v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218 , 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973).	1	2018–2018
State v. Jones green ohioctapp · 1996 2 sentences 2018Montgomery No. 22173, 2008-Ohio-3490 , 2008 WL 2698642 , ¶ 10 ("[c]onstructive possession has been found when the drugs are in plain view in an area shared with another"). {¶ 58} "The right of police officers to search a suspect incident to a lawful arrest has been a long-recognized exception 343 to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." (Citations omitted.) State v. Jones , 112 Ohio App.3d 206 , 215, 678 N.E.2d 285 (2d Dist.1996). 2018Montgomery No. 22173, 2008-Ohio-3490 , 2008 WL 2698642 , ¶ 10 ("[c]onstructive possession has been found when the drugs are in plain view in an area shared with another"). {¶ 58} "The right of police officers to search a suspect incident to a lawful arrest has been a long-recognized exception 343 to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." (Citations omitted.) State v. Jones , 112 Ohio App.3d 206 , 215, 678 N.E.2d 285 (2d Dist.1996).	1	2018–2018
State v. Sisson, 22173 (7-11-2008) neutral ohioctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2018Montgomery No. 22173, 2008-Ohio-3490 , 2008 WL 2698642 , ¶ 10 ("[c]onstructive possession has been found when the drugs are in plain view in an area shared with another"). {¶ 58} "The right of police officers to search a suspect incident to a lawful arrest has been a long-recognized exception *343 to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." (Citations omitted.) State v. Jones , 112 Ohio App.3d 206 , 215, 678 N.E.2d 285 (2d Dist.1996).	1	2018–2018
In Re L.G., Unpublished Decision (2-12-2007) neutral ohioctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2013No. CA2006-05-116, 2007-Ohio-591, ¶ 4 . {¶ 13} However, if a magistrate's decision does not comply with Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(a)(iii), then a party may assign as error on appeal the trial court's adoption of the magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions of law.	1	2013–2013
City of Cleveland v. Raffa green ohio · 1968 2 sentences 2008Council, 99 Ohio St.3d 172 , 2003-Ohio-3050 , 789 N.E.2d 1108, at ¶ 39 ; Cleveland v. Raffa (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 112, 114 , 42 O.O.2d 329 , 235 N.E.2d 138 .” {¶ 37} R.C. 2901.21(A) embodies the long-recognized principle that a crime is composed of both an actus reus and a mens rea — the voluntary act (or the failure to act when required to do so) and the requisite mental state to commit that act. 2008Council, 99 Ohio St.3d 172 , 2003-Ohio-3050 , 789 N.E.2d 1108, at ¶ 39 ; Cleveland v. Raffa (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 112, 114 , 42 O.O.2d 329 , 235 N.E.2d 138 .” {¶ 37} R.C. 2901.21(A) embodies the long-recognized principle that a crime is composed of both an actus reus and a mens rea — the voluntary act (or the failure to act when required to do so) and the requisite mental state to commit that act.	1	2008–2008
State ex rel. King v. Summit County Council green ohio · 2003 2 sentences 2008Council, 99 Ohio St.3d 172 , 2003-Ohio-3050 , 789 N.E.2d 1108, at ¶ 39 ; Cleveland v. Raffa (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 112, 114 , 42 O.O.2d 329 , 235 N.E.2d 138 .” {¶ 37} R.C. 2901.21(A) embodies the long-recognized principle that a crime is composed of both an actus reus and a mens rea — the voluntary act (or the failure to act when required to do so) and the requisite mental state to commit that act. 2008Council, 99 Ohio St.3d 172 , 2003-Ohio-3050 , 789 N.E.2d 1108, at ¶ 39 ; Cleveland v. Raffa (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 112, 114 , 42 O.O.2d 329 , 235 N.E.2d 138 .” {¶ 37} R.C. 2901.21(A) embodies the long-recognized principle that a crime is composed of both an actus reus and a mens rea — the voluntary act (or the failure to act when required to do so) and the requisite mental state to commit that act.	1	2008–2008
State v. Colon green ohio · 2008 2 sentences 2008State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1624 , 885 N.E.2d 917, at ¶ 10 . {¶ 38} In some circumstances, the mens rea requirement is inapplicable; for example, in strict-liability offenses. 2008State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1624 , 885 N.E.2d 917, at ¶ 10 . {¶ 38} In some circumstances, the mens rea requirement is inapplicable; for example, in strict-liability offenses.	1	2008–2008
State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. neutral ohio · 2000 1 sentence 2006Mfg., Inc., 88 Ohio St.3d 52 , 53 , 723 N.E.2d 571 , 2000-Ohio-269 . {¶ 58} "The waiver under [Civ.R.53] embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error, by objection or otherwise, when the error could have been corrected, results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal." In re: Etter (1998), 134 Ohio App.3d 484 , 492 , 731 N.E.2d 694 . {¶ 59} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.	1	2006–2006
State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. green ohio · 2000 2 sentences 2006Mfg., Inc., 88 Ohio St.3d 52 , 53 , 723 N.E.2d 571 , 2000-Ohio-269 . {¶ 58} "The waiver under [Civ.R.53] embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error, by objection or otherwise, when the error could have been corrected, results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal." In re: Etter (1998), 134 Ohio App.3d 484 , 492 , 731 N.E.2d 694 . {¶ 59} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed. 2006Mfg., Inc., 88 Ohio St.3d 52 , 53 , 723 N.E.2d 571 , 2000-Ohio-269 . {¶ 58} "The waiver under [Civ.R.53] embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error, by objection or otherwise, when the error could have been corrected, results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal." In re: Etter (1998), 134 Ohio App.3d 484 , 492 , 731 N.E.2d 694 . {¶ 59} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.	1	2006–2006
Hammond v. Ocean Shore Development Co. green calctapp · 1913 2 sentences 2003Hammond v. Ocean Shore Dev. (1913), 22 Cal.App. 167, 170 , 133 P. 978 ; see, also, Ratcliff v. Dick Johnson School Twp. (1933), 204 Ind. 525 , 185 N.E. 143 ; J.R. 2003Hammond v. Ocean Shore Dev. (1913), 22 Cal.App. 167, 170 , 133 P. 978 ; see, also, Ratcliff v. Dick Johnson School Twp. (1933), 204 Ind. 525 , 185 N.E. 143 ; J.R.	1	2003–2003
State v. Thomas green ohio · 1982 2 sentences 2001See State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 , syllabus; State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , 434 N.E.2d 1356 . 2001See State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 , syllabus; State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , 434 N.E.2d 1356 .	1	2001–2001

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.353 (11) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.414 (9) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.413 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.011 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.352 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.281 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.415 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 51 (1878–2026) OH 46 (1996–2025) CA 27 (1942–2024) TX 24 (1940–2018) IL 20 (1957–2026) PA 19 (1944–2022) IN 13 (1935–2019) AR 13 (1999–2026) CT 12 (1930–2010) TN 11 (1976–2012) GA 11 (1975–2025) NM 10 (1974–2013) MD 10 (1964–2020) FL 10 (1981–2026) WA 9 (1988–2025) NJ 8 (1942–2020) IA 8 (1944–2025) OK 8 (1959–2023) LA 8 (1983–2013) WY 7 (1987–2020) AL 7 (1929–2010) RI 7 (1987–2023) CO 7 (1977–1992) MA 7 (1994–2024) MI 7 (1933–2013) HI 5 (1992–2014) NC 5 (1897–2012) NE 5 (1961–2021) MO 5 (1955–1999) DC 4 (1982–2008) KS 4 (1979–2021) KY 4 (1980–2025) MS 3 (2002–2018) VA 3 (1971–2026) SC 3 (1999–2019) ME 2 (1971–1986) WV 2 (2003–2007) WI 2 (2006–2020) AZ 2 (2012–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check