Ohio Court of Appeals· 5/19/2023
State v. Johnson
Citations
- 2023 Ohio 1686
Syllabus
The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider appellant's motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the issues raised in appellant's third motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial were barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.
Judges: Huffman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court· 1983-07-06· cited 14,330×
- State v. PerryOhio Supreme Court· 1967-05-03· cited 2,571×
- State v. SzefcykOhio Supreme Court· 1996-11-13· cited 645×
- Pratts v. HurleyOhio Supreme Court· 2004-05-05· cited 432×
- State v. Harper (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-05-14· cited 319×
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2014-10-08· cited 312×
- State v. Bethel (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2022-03-22· cited 161×
- State ex rel. Cordray v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court· 2009-09-30· cited 61×
- State v. CollinsOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-08-23· cited 44×
- In re Guardianship of LombardoOhio Supreme Court· 1999-09-29· cited 26×
- State ex rel. Rose v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & CorrectionOhio Supreme Court· 2001-05-23· cited 20×
- State v. QuinnOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-01-15· cited 9×
- State ex rel. Rose v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.Ohio Supreme Court· 2001-05-23· cited 8×
- State v. QuinnOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-12-28· cited 7×
- State v. JohnsonOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-07-08· cited 2×
- State v. HaydenOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-10-07· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.