green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family: Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories ↗
Issue: burden of showing errorOH ↗
Issue: burden of demonstrating errorOH ↗
Issue: burden to show errorOH ↗
Issue: burden to demonstrate errorOH ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
40.6 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 1992–2020 ·
…when portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and …
⚠ not in text
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 ·
…at the time of filing the notice of appeal the appellant, in writing, shall order from the reporter a complete transcript or a transcript of the parts of the proceedings not already on file as the appellant considers necessary for inclusion in the record and file a copy of the o…
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pietrangelo v. Hudson
(2×)
an appellant bears the burden of showing error by reference to matters in the record.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Green
“This is because an appellant has the burden to show error by reference to matters in the record.” Id., citing State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 (1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Lao
Trumbull No. 2003-T-0134, 2004-Ohio-4386, ¶4 , citing State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 (1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Petition for Adoption of H.R.
State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 (1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Karnofel
“Such is necessary because an appellant shoulders the burden of demonstrating error by reference to matters within the record.” Warren, supra, citing State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 (1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guardianship & Protective Servs., Inc. v. Mann
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980), citing State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 (1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Martin
“Such is necessary because an appellant shoulders the burden of demonstrating error by reference to matters within the record.” Warren, supra, citing State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Elzey
See State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus (“The failure of a recording device to completely reproduce all of the proceedings of a trial in a petty offense case is not prejudicial per se.”). 26 amend.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ober
See State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 (1978). {¶25} This principle is embodied in App.R. 9(B)(1), which states “It is the obligation of the appellant to ensure that the proceedings the appellant considers necessary for inclusion in the record…are transcribed in a form that meets the specifications of App.R. 9(B)(6).” See also Streetsboro v. Hughes, 1987 WL 15055 , *1 (11th Dist.
discussed
Cited "see"
Leaf v. Leaf
(2×)
See, State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 (1978). 2 By Judgment Entry filed June 6, 2022, Appellant was permitted to supplement the record with a transcript of the audio recording of the February 2, 2022, hearing.
cited
Cited "see"
Meredith v. Alliance Castings Co., L.L.C.
See State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re J.C.
(2×)
See, State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 (1978). {¶45} This principle is embodied in App.R. 9(B), which states in relevant part: If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the weight of the evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to the findings or conclusion.
discussed
Cited "see"
Stanley v. Parker
(2×)
See, State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 (1978). {¶41} This principle is embodied in App.R. 9(B), which states in relevant part: If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the weight of the evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to the findings or conclusion.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Dunbar
(2×)
See Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980), citing State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Massie
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 (1978) (appellant has the burden to show the relevance of omissions in the record and to use the provisions of App.R. 9).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harvey v. Boak
(2×)
See, State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 (1978).
examined
Cited "see"
In re A.G.
(3×)
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 7 O.O.3d 243 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Schaefer v. Bolog
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 [ 372 N.E.2d 1355 ].
discussed
Cited "see"
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Green
(2×)
See, State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Williams
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Namenyi v. Tomasello
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 .
cited
Cited "see"
Mizer v. Mizer
See State v. Coshocton County, Case No. 2014CA0008 13 Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brown
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barringer v. Barringer
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. McGee
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 (1978). {¶9} This principle is embodied in App.R. 9(B), which states in relevant part: At the time of filing the notice of appeal the appellant, in writing, shall order from the reporter a complete transcript or a transcript of the parts of the proceedings not already on file as the appellant considers necessary for inclusion in the record and file a copy of the order with the clerk. * * * If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the weight of the evide…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Fiscus
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hicks
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Sliwinski v. Capital Properties Mgt. Ltd.
See State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sunbury v. Sullivan
(2×)
See, State v. Skaggs, (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Watson
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Kendrick
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Try Auto Sales, Inc. v. Danal
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Krofft v. Muskingum Cty. Job & Family Servs.
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Getachew
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 .
cited
Cited "see"
Cintas Corp. 130 v. Artcraft Memorials Inc.
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Schmidt v. Schmidt
(2×)
See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162 , 372 N.E.2d 1355 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Ohio
v.
Skaggs
v.
Skaggs
No. 77-720.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Mar 1, 1978.
372 N.E.2d 1355
Mr. Michael DeWine, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Joe R. Fodal, for appellee., Mr. James, P. Jones, for appellant.
Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Locher, Neill, Sweeney.
Cited by 225 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Ohio Court of Appeals (2)
Paul W. Brown, J.
The. question on appeal-is whether in a petty .offense case, when the trial court undertakes the tape, recording of all proceedings Under. Crinn R. 22 and the court reporter is unable to transcribe from the tapes some of the proceedings., there is reversible error as a matter of law based upon the inadequacy of the. record.
Crim. R. 22 states, in part:
“In petty offense cases * * * if requested by any party all proceedings shall be recorded.
“Proceedings, may be recorded in shorthand, or steno-type, or by any other adequate mechanical, electronic or video recording device.”
The Court, of Appeals held that “on the whole, the proceeding is faithfully reproduced.” It held further that:
“* * * [i]n most cases, the nature of the response can be ascertained from the context and we note that the. worst example of this failure to transcribe what was said occurs on pages 299 and 300 where counsel for the appellant was arguing a motion to strike certain testimony, which was admissible.”
The burden to show the relevance of omissions or deficiencies must be placed upon appellant within the framework of claimed error. Appellant has not met this burden, "die proper procedure was available under the provisions of App. R. 9(C) and should have been pursued by appellant.
App. R. 9(C) states in part:
“If no report of the evidence or proceedings at a hearing or trial was made, or if a transcript is unavailable, the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including his recollection.”
The Court of Appeals for Greene County certified that its judgment is in conflict with the judgment in White v.[*164] White, supra. We do not agree and perceive the issue in White to be different from that in this cause. In White, the appellant properly requested that a court reporter be provided and the request was refused by the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had a mandatory duty to allow the request under Civ. R. 53(C) and that failure of the trial court to provide a reporter was prejudicial error as a matter of law.
In the instant cause, the appellant made no request for a recording of the proceedings. Since a recording was made, pursuant to Crim. R. 22, the only issue herein as to whether inadequacies in that record require a reversal under these facts must be decided in the negative.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur. Celebrezze, J., dissents.