Case Citator › State v. Kalish

State v. Kalish

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

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
120 Ohio St. 3d 23
Decided
Confirmed treatments
6
Flagged citations read
136 of 136
Citing cases (total)
1,234
Treatment dates
2013–2016
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. All 136 flagged citations for State v. Kalish have been read, and the 6 confirmed treatments are listed below. Five Ohio appellate decisions independently held that H.B.
More on how this was screened

86 and R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) superseded Kalish's two-step abuse-of-discretion framework, and the Ohio Supreme Court later abrogated that framework in State v. Marcum. Other opinions repeated or implemented the Venes and Marcum treatments, retained Kalish only as contrary-to-law guidance, or used nearby adverse language for assignments of error and unrelated cases. A vacated State v. Gwynne opinion produced no entry.

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.

1,234 later cases cite State v. Kalish; 136 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. Kalish?

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

Superseded by Statute

  • The Eighth District held that H.B. 86 and R.C. 2953.08 nullified the basis for Kalish's abuse-of-discretion framework, replacing it with the statutory standard for review of consecutive sentences.

    State v. Venes · Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth District · filed

    With the basis for the decision in Kalish no longer valid, and given that Kalish had questionable precedential value in any event, we see no viable reasoning for continuing to apply the standard of review used in that case. Henceforth, we review consecutive sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Eighth District applied the revived statutory standard to all felony sentences, retaining Kalish only as guidance for whether a sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

    State v. A.H. · Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth District · filed

    Although Kalish no longer provides the framework for reviewing felony sentences, it does provide this court with adequate guidance for determining whether a sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The First District held that the General Assembly's reenactment of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) displaced Kalish's plurality abuse-of-discretion framework for felony-sentence review.

    State v. White · Ohio Court of Appeals, First District · filed

    We presume the legislature knew what it was doing when it reenacted the R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard of review. And we cannot justify applying an abuse of discretion standard where the legislature has explicitly told us that the standard of review is not an abuse of discretion. Thus, henceforth, we will apply the statutory standard rather than the Kalish plurality framework to our review of felony sentences.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Eleventh District held that Kalish was no longer good law after H.B. 86 and replaced its framework with R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

    State v. Long · Ohio Court of Appeals, Eleventh District · filed

    However, we now conclude that Kalish is no longer good law. Rather, we must use the standard of review as set out in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Fifth District held that Kalish's two-step approach no longer governed appellate review of felony sentences and substituted R.C. 2953.08.

    State v. Howell · Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth District · filed

    The two-step approach set forth in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124 no longer applies to appellate review of felony sentences. State v. Tammerine, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L–13–1081, 2014–Ohio–425, ¶10. We now review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Abrogated

  • The Ohio Supreme Court abrogated Kalish's plurality abuse-of-discretion test, holding that appellate courts must instead apply the clear-and-convincing statutory review required by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

    State v. Marcum · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed

    In other words, an appellate court need not apply the test set out by the plurality in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Kalish 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