legality test in Ohio

43 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1892–2025 6 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 (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Nicholson, Unpublished Decision (12-13-2004)green ohioctapp · 2004 · cited in 11 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2005–2025 2 sentences 2025The extent of the state's burden of proof establishing substantial compliance, however, "only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test." State v. Nicholson, 2004-Ohio-6666, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.). 2009State v. Plunkett , Warren App. No. CA2007-01-012, 2008-Ohio-1014 , ¶ 11 , citing City of Xenia v. Wallace (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 216 , 220 . {¶ 8} Further, although the burden shifts to the state, the extent of the state's burden of proof establishing substantial compliance "only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test." State v. Nicholson , Warren App. No. CA2003-10-106, 2004-Ohio-6666 , ¶ 10 .	2	11
State v. Plummergreen ohio · 1986 · cited in 6 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2004–2023 2 sentences 2023Id. {¶13} However, the burden to establish substantial compliance only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test. 2008Id., citing State v. Williams (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 39 . {¶ 10} The extent of the state's burden of proof establishing substantial compliance "only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test." State v. Nicholson , Warren App. No. CA2003-10-106, 2004-Ohio-6666 , ¶ 10 .	2	6
City of Xenia v. Wallacegreen ohio · 1988 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2009–2021 2 sentences 2021Warren No. CA2007-01-012, 2008-Ohio-1014, ¶ 11 , citing City of Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216, 220 (1988). {¶25} Although the burden shifts to the state, the extent of the state's burden of proof establishing substantial compliance "only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test." State v. Nicholson, 12th Dist. 2018Warren No. CA2007-01-012, 2008-Ohio- 1014, ¶ 11, citing City of Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216, 220 (1988). {¶ 14} The extent of the state's burden for establishing substantial compliance "only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test." State v. Nicholson, 12th Dist.	2	3
State v. Johnsongreen ohioctapp · 2000 · cited in 18 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2004–2025 2 sentences 2015Delaware No. 09CAC070065, 2010–Ohio– 762,¶12, we reviewed the threshold the State must reach in presenting its evidence: Delaware County, Case No. 14 CAA 12 0080 5 The burden to establish substantial compliance, however, only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test. [State v. Johnson, 137 Ohio App.3d 847, 851 , 739 N.E.2d 1249 (2000); State v. Crothers, 12th Dist. 2015Delaware No. 09CAC070065, 2010–Ohio– 762,¶12, we reviewed the threshold the State must reach in presenting its evidence: Delaware County, Case No. 14 CAA 12 0080 5 The burden to establish substantial compliance, however, only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test. [State v. Johnson, 137 Ohio App.3d 847, 851 , 739 N.E.2d 1249 (2000); State v. Crothers, 12th Dist.	1	18
State v. Gassergreen ohioctapp · 1980 · cited in 7 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1985–2000 2 sentences 2000In State v. Gasser (1980), 5 Ohio App.3d 217 , 5 OBR 501, 451 N.E.2d 249 , this court held that burden of proof in a motion to suppress the results of a blood 569 alcohol test are on the prosecution to the extent that “the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test.” This court further explained in Defiance v. Stafford (Feb. 7, 1992) Defiance App. No. 4-88-10, unreported, 1992 WL 24864 , that once the accused has articulated his objections to the tests, then the burden shifts to the prosecution in demonstrating that the “alleged errors did not occur or, if they did occur, they had no 2000In State v. Gasser (1980), 5 Ohio App.3d 217 , 5 OBR 501, 451 N.E.2d 249 , this court held that burden of proof in a motion to suppress the results of a blood 569 alcohol test are on the prosecution to the extent that “the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test.” This court further explained in Defiance v. Stafford (Feb. 7, 1992) Defiance App. No. 4-88-10, unreported, 1992 WL 24864 , that once the accused has articulated his objections to the tests, then the burden shifts to the prosecution in demonstrating that the “alleged errors did not occur or, if they did occur, they had no	1	7
State v. Ossegegreen ohioctapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025"Once the State has met its burden, a presumption of admissibility is created, and the burden then shifts to the defendant to rebut that presumption by demonstrating he [or she] was prejudiced by anything less than strict compliance." State v. Ossege, 2014-Ohio-3186, ¶ 21 (12th Dist.), citing Dugan at ¶ 32 . {¶ 15} Here, the State met its burden of proving substantial compliance with the regulation's witness requirements.	1	1
City of Fairfield v. Regnergreen ohioctapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See Fairfield v. Regner (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 79 , 491 N.E.2d 333 , quoting State v. Gasser (1980), 5 Ohio App.3d 217 , 451 N.E.2d 249 . 1999See Fairfield v. Regner (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 79 , 491 N.E.2d 333 , quoting State v. Gasser (1980), 5 Ohio App.3d 217 , 451 N.E.2d 249 .	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 (15)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Conley, 2007 Ca 52 (2-15-2008) neutral ohioctapp · 2008 2 sentences 2021Greene No. 2007-CA-52, 2008-Ohio-609, ¶ 7 , quoting State v. Bissaillon, 2d Dist. 2020Greene No. 2007-CA-52, 2008-Ohio-609, ¶ 7 , quoting State v. Bissaillon, 2d Dist.	2	2020–2021
State v. Plunkett, Ca2007-01-012 (3-10-2008) green ohioctapp · 2008 2 sentences 2021Warren No. CA2007-01-012, 2008-Ohio-1014, ¶ 11 , citing City of Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216, 220 (1988). {¶25} Although the burden shifts to the state, the extent of the state's burden of proof establishing substantial compliance "only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test." State v. Nicholson, 12th Dist. 2009State v. Plunkett , Warren App. No. CA2007-01-012, 2008-Ohio-1014 , ¶ 11 , citing City of Xenia v. Wallace (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 216 , 220 . {¶ 8} Further, although the burden shifts to the state, the extent of the state's burden of proof establishing substantial compliance "only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test." State v. Nicholson , Warren App. No. CA2003-10-106, 2004-Ohio-6666 , ¶ 10 .	2	2009–2021
State v. Homan green ohio · 2000 2 sentences 2018In State v. Burnside , 100 Ohio St.3d 152 ,159, 2003-Ohio-5372 , 797 N.E.2d 71 , the Ohio Supreme Court limited the substantial-compliance standard set forth in Plummer to "excusing only errors that are clearly de minimis." The Court continued: "Consistent with this limitation, we have characterized those errors that are excusable under the substantial-compliance standard as 'minor procedural deviations.' " Id., citing State v. Homan , 89 Ohio St.3d 421 , 426, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000). {¶ 16} The burden to establish substantial compliance, however, only extends to the level with which the defenda 2018In State v. Burnside , 100 Ohio St.3d 152 ,159, 2003-Ohio-5372 , 797 N.E.2d 71 , the Ohio Supreme Court limited the substantial-compliance standard set forth in Plummer to "excusing only errors that are clearly de minimis." The Court continued: "Consistent with this limitation, we have characterized those errors that are excusable under the substantial-compliance standard as 'minor procedural deviations.' " Id., citing State v. Homan , 89 Ohio St.3d 421 , 426, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000). {¶ 16} The burden to establish substantial compliance, however, only extends to the level with which the defenda	2	2018–2018
State v. Burnside green ohio · 2003 2 sentences 2018In State v. Burnside , 100 Ohio St.3d 152 ,159, 2003-Ohio-5372 , 797 N.E.2d 71 , the Ohio Supreme Court limited the substantial-compliance standard set forth in Plummer to "excusing only errors that are clearly de minimis." The Court continued: "Consistent with this limitation, we have characterized those errors that are excusable under the substantial-compliance standard as 'minor procedural deviations.' " Id., citing State v. Homan , 89 Ohio St.3d 421 , 426, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000). {¶ 16} The burden to establish substantial compliance, however, only extends to the level with which the defenda 2018In State v. Burnside , 100 Ohio St.3d 152 ,159, 2003-Ohio-5372 , 797 N.E.2d 71 , the Ohio Supreme Court limited the substantial-compliance standard set forth in Plummer to "excusing only errors that are clearly de minimis." The Court continued: "Consistent with this limitation, we have characterized those errors that are excusable under the substantial-compliance standard as 'minor procedural deviations.' " Id., citing State v. Homan , 89 Ohio St.3d 421 , 426, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000). {¶ 16} The burden to establish substantial compliance, however, only extends to the level with which the defenda	2	2018–2018
State v. Crothers, Unpublished Decision (5-10-2004) green ohioctapp · 2004 2 sentences 2014Clinton No. Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00247 10 CA2003-08-020, 2004-Ohio-2299, at ¶ 10 .] When the defendant's motion to suppress merely raises a generalized claim of inadmissibility and identifies the section(s) of the Administrative Code implicated in that claim, the burden on the state is slight. [State v. Bissaillon, 2nd Dist. 2008State v. Johnson (2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 847 , 851 ; State v. Crothers , Clinton App. No. CA2003-08-020, 2004-Ohio-2299 , at ¶ 10 .	2	2008–2014
State v. Dugan green ohioctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2016Id. {¶ 10} Although the burden shifts to the state, the extent of the state's burden of proof establishing substantial compliance "only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test." State v. Nicholson, 12th Dist.	1	2016–2016
State v. Siegel green ohioctapp · 2000 2 sentences 2011State v. Siegel, 138 Ohio App.3d 562, 568-69 , 2000-Ohio-1747 , 741 N.E.2d 938 . 2011State v. Siegel, 138 Ohio App.3d 562, 568-69 , 2000-Ohio-1747 , 741 N.E.2d 938 .	1	2011–2011
State v. Williams green ohioctapp · 1992 1 sentence 2008Id., citing State v. Williams (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 39 . {¶ 10} The extent of the state's burden of proof establishing substantial compliance "only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test." State v. Nicholson , Warren App. No. CA2003-10-106, 2004-Ohio-6666 , ¶ 10 .	1	2008–2008
State v. Linz, Unpublished Decision (5-10-2004) neutral ohioctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2005State v. Linz, Clinton App. No. CA2003-06-016, 2004-Ohio-2297 , ¶ 8 .	1	2005–2005
State v. Adams green ohioctapp · 1992 2 sentences 2000In State v. Adams (1992) 73 Ohio App.3d 735 , 598 N.E.2d 176 , the court, relying on Supreme Court authority, wrote: “The purpose of the observation rule is to require positive evidence that during the twenty minutes prior to the test the accused did not ingest some material which might produce an inaccurate test result. 2000In State v. Adams (1992) 73 Ohio App.3d 735 , 598 N.E.2d 176 , the court, relying on Supreme Court authority, wrote: “The purpose of the observation rule is to require positive evidence that during the twenty minutes prior to the test the accused did not ingest some material which might produce an inaccurate test result.	1	2000–2000
State v. French green ohio · 1995 1 sentence 1999State v. French (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 446 , paragraph one of the syllabus.	1	1999–1999
State v. Young green ohioctapp · 1993 1 sentence 1998Within this framework then, "the state had the ultimate burden of proving only the fulfillment of the prerequisites or foundation conditions to the extent that the accused took issue with the legality of the test." State v. Young (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 486 , 489 citing State v. Vermillion (May 8, 1995), Union App. No. 14-83-9, unreported.	1	1998–1998
Lindley v. Ferguson neutral ohioctapp · 1976 2 sentences 1983Lindley v. Ferguson (1976), 53 Ohio App. 2d 203 [ 7 O.O.3d 276 ], Further, the duty to investigate, in Krabach, supra, was conditioned on the existence of ample reason to question the legality of a claim. 1983Lindley v. Ferguson (1976), 53 Ohio App. 2d 203 [ 7 O.O.3d 276 ], Further, the duty to investigate, in Krabach, supra, was conditioned on the existence of ample reason to question the legality of a claim.	1	1983–1983
State ex rel. Krabach v. Ferguson neutral ohio · 1976 1 sentence 1977Krabach, v. Ferguson (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 168 , in which paragraph one of the syllabus states: “The Auditor of State has the authority and duty to investigate or require further proof of a claim presented to him where ample reason exists to question the legality of the claim; (R.	1	1977–1977
People v. Noll green · 1862 1 sentence 1892People v. Noll, 20 Cal. 164 .	1	1892–1892

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.19 (21)

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

OH 43 (1892–2025) PA 40 (1929–2025) NY 16 (1889–2009) LA 11 (1990–2022) TN 8 (1900–2010) CA 8 (1924–2026) MO 6 (1904–2012) OK 4 (1931–1934) IL 3 (1974–2012) MT 3 (1922–2004) NE 2 (1938–1996) KS 2 (1917–2015) ME 2 (2018–2018) CT 2 (1992–2008) KY 2 (1957–1994) MA 2 (1995–2006) WA 2 (1895–1911)

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