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.
5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 13 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Mbodji.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Mbodji Anchor | green | “the issue can never be waived or forfeited and may be raised at any time.” | 3 |
| 2 | State v. Walston | green | “instead, as to the 'oath' requirement, crim.r. 3(a) only states that the complaint must be made under oath before a person who has the power to administer the necessary oath.” | 3 |
| 3 | Stern v. Board of Elections | green | “a jurat is not part of an affidavit, but is simply a certificate of the notary public administering the oath, which is prima facie evidence of the fact that the affidavit was properly made before such notary.” | 3 |
| 4 | Miamisburg v. Rinderle | green | “even if the jurat is defective, 'the validity of the complaint can still be upheld if the prosecution can otherwise show, based upon other language in the document or evidence outside the record, that a proper oath was administered by a person duly authorized to take the oath.” | 2 |
| 5 | State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose (Slip Opinion) | green | “the 'key difference' between a jurat and an acknowledgment is that 'an acknowledgment is not made under oath.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.