C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 376 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 376 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

A judgment supported by competent and credible evidence regarding all essential elements of a case is not reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence.

After a trial court determined that a late steel delivery was not the proximate cause of a contractor's failure to complete a highway project on time, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The question presented is whether the appellate court erred in finding the trial court's ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Because the trial court's finding was supported by competent and credible evidence, including testimony that the project was on schedule at the time of delivery and that delays were caused by staffing issues and pending approvals, the judgment cannot be reversed. A reviewing court must presume the findings of the trier of fact are correct when applying the manifest weight of the evidence standard.

8,474 citation events (5,930 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re A.F., 2026-Ohio-2998
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
54 Ohio St. 2d at 279 “judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence.”292 citing cases288 citing courts quote it · Neutral (citing treatments of this passage) · 201 listed here
Show 191 more citing cases
54 Ohio St. 2d at 280 Reversal standard for judgments supported by evidence66 citing casesstating that judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed on appeal as being against the manifest weight of the evidence1 citing court put it this way
  • In re A.F., 2026-Ohio-2998.published
    Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 280-281 (1978). {¶ 23} Mother appears to frame her arguments as manifest weight arguments as she argues her evidence was more persuasive than that presented by SCJFS.
  • In re J.W., 2026-Ohio-2586.published
    Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 280-281 (1978).
  • Bowers v. Brown, 2026-Ohio-2365.published 2 cites
    Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 280 (1978). {¶26} “‘[W]hen reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the- evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct.’” Warnecke at ¶ 13, quoting…
  • State v. Dhimal, 2026-Ohio-1805.published
    Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 280 (1978); see also Morris v. Gedraitis, 2023- Ohio-2317, ¶ 75 (5th Dist.), citing Moran v. Gaskella, 2012-Ohio-1158, ¶ 12 (5th Dist.).
  • Fox v. Schwartz & Dompier, 2026-Ohio-1025.published
    Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 280 (1978).
  • Cole v. Schoenberger, 2026-Ohio-768.published
    Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 280 (1978). {¶16} “‘[W]hen reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the- evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct.’” Warnecke at ¶ 13, quoting…
  • In re J.L., 2026-Ohio-576.published
    Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., 54 Ohio St. 2d 279, 280-281 (1978).
  • In re O.S., 2025-Ohio-4867.published 2 cites
    Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 280-281 (1978).
  • Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise, APLC v. Washington, 2025-Ohio-4839.published
    Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 280 (1978).
  • Lantz v. Smith, 2025-Ohio-2464.published
    Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 280 (1978). {¶13} The Smiths first contend that the magistrate’s — and ultimately, the trial judge’s — finding of an absolute nuisance was against the manifest weight of the evidence because there was no evidence to…
Show 56 more citing cases
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The C. E. Morris Company
v.
Foley Construction Company
No. 77-594.
Ohio Supreme Court.
May 24, 1978.
Published opinion
376 N.E.2d 578
1978 Ohio LEXIS 556
Messrs. Vorys, Safer, Seymour & Pease and Mr. Thomas M. Taggart, for appellant., Messrs. Knepper, White, Arter & Hadden, Mr. John A. Jenkins and Mr. Donald G. Paynter, for appellee.
Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Locheb, Neill, Only, Sweeney.
Cited by 4,699 opinions  |  Published
William B. Brown, J.

The main issue raised by the instant cause is whether the trial court’s ruling that the July delivery of steel was not the proximate cause of damages suffered by Foley was correctly determined by the Court of Appeals to be against the manifest weight of the evidence.[1]

Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. See Chicago Ornamental Iron Co. v. Rook (1915), 93 Ohio St. 152, 160; Portage Markets Co. v. George (1924), 111 Ohio St. 775 (paragraph[*281] one of the syllabus); and 3 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 817, Appellate Review, Section 820, and the cases cited therein.

The trial court’s determination that the late steel delivery was not the proximate cause of Foley’s failure, to complete the highway on time is supported by such- evidence. Trial testimony revealed that Foley requested a March steel delivery date from Morris and' that Morris did not deliver the steel until July. However, there was also testimony that, while Foley completed the project 41 days late[2] , it was on schedule when Morris delivered its steel. Witnesses also testified that, for 45 days after Morris delivered its steel and Foley could have begun to use that steel in bridge construction, the steel was- stored at the construction site awaiting state and railway approval of erection plans which either Foley or a subcontractor other than Morris was responsible for delivering. Finally, there was also testimony that at least some of Foley’s- inability to meet its deadline was due to its failure to staff the project with adequate personnel. Since the record discloses that the trial court had competent evidence before it on which to base its finding that Morris’ July delivery of steel was not the proximate cause of any damages suffered by Foley, we must reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.[3]

Judgment reversed.

O’Neill, C. J., Celebrezze, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locheb, JJ., concur. Herbert, J., concurs in the judgment only.
1

Foley also contends that “[w]hen a case is heard on the merits pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify, the Supreme Court of Ohio will not consider any proposition of law which is not raised in the memoranda supporting or opposing claimed jurisdiction.” Morris’ failure to so raise the question of whether the Court of Appeals applied the proper standard when it determined whether the trial court’s proximate cause ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence does not bar this court from deciding that issue because a “cause properly appealed to this court is here for the proper determination of all questions presented by the record * * *” (Winslow v. Ohio Bus Line Co. [1947], 148 Ohio St. 101), and the standard applied by the Court of Appeals is clearly presented by the record in the instant cause. Foley’s contention is, therefore, without merit.

2

Foley was actually 141 days late finishing the project. However,, only 41 of those days were treated as late days by the state.

3

Morris also contends that in its prior ruling as well as in-its determination on proximate cause, the Court of Appeals overruled' the judgment of the trial court as being against the manifest weight of the. evidence in violation of R. C. 2321.18 and App. R. 12 (,C). Since we. find that, in any case, the trial court was correct when it determined that the late steel delivery was not the proximate cause of any damages-suffered by Foley, it is not necessary for this court to address Morris’ contention.