Case Citator › State v. Ketterer

State v. Ketterer

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
2010-Ohio-3831
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
83 of 83
Citing cases (total)
83
Treatment dates
2017
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. State v. Ketterer has one confirmed limit after all 83 flagged citations were read. The Supreme Court of Ohio declined to extend Ketterer’s requirement concerning the maximum prison term for a postrelease-control violation beyond Ketterer’s circumstances.
More on how this was screened

That treatment is listed below. Later courts continued to apply its other holdings.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

83 later cases cite State v. Ketterer; 83 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State v. Ketterer?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court of Ohio declined to extend Ketterer’s determination that a sentencing entry must state the maximum term for a postrelease-control violation beyond that case’s facts and circumstances.

    State v. Grimes · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed

    {¶ 23} Grimes relies on our determination that the trial court erred by failing to include in the nunc pro tunc entry the maximum term that the APA could impose if Ketterer violated a condition of his postrelease control, see id. at ¶ 77. While we did determine that the nunc pro tunc entry should be amended to include this information, given the substantial deficiencies of the resentencing hearing and the nunc pro tunc entry—and our observation that “trial courts in capital cases must scrupulously comply with the applicable statutes and rules, even those involving postrelease control,” id. at ¶ 78—we decline to extend this determination beyond the facts and circumstances of Ketterer.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Ketterer and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace