How cited: In re A.S. · Go Syfert

In re A.S. (2013)

green · 17 citation events across 1 courts. Showing the 6 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 6

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Pluskota v. McVicker (2026)

Rule Authority · Ohio Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion

In re A.S., 2013-Ohio-1975, ¶ 26 (9th Dist.).

green In re S.T. (2025)

Rule Authority · Ohio Ct. App.

In re A.S., 2013-Ohio-1975, ¶ 14-15 (9th Dist.).

green In re B.W. (2025)

Rule Authority · Ohio Ct. App.

Before so ruling, the court may hear additional evidence but may refuse to do so unless the objecting party demonstrates that the party could not, with reasonable diligence, have produced that evidence for consideration by the magistrate.” “Juv.R. 40 contemplates that new events may arise or be discovered between the time of a magistrate’s decision and a trial judge’s final judgment, and the rule provides a mechanism for the introduction of such evidence in a timely manner.”…

green Hall v. Zimmerman (2021)

Rule Authority · Ohio Ct. App.

Summit No. 26462, 2013-Ohio-1975, ¶ 14 (analyzing identical provisions of Juv.R. 40 and Civ.R. 53).

green Maddox v. Maddox (2016)

Rule Authority · Ohio Ct. App.

Summit No. 2642, 2013-Ohio-1975, ¶ 14-20 (analyzing identical 9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS language in Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d)).

green Morrison v. Morrison (2014)

Rule Authority · Ohio Ct. App.

Summit No. 26462, 2013-Ohio-1975, ¶ 14-15 (analyzing identical language in Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d)). {¶27} A trial court generally has discretion to decide whether it will hear new evidence following objections, but “a court does not have discretion to refuse to consider new evidence if the objecting party demonstrates that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have presented the evidence to the magistrate.” Welch v. Welch, 4th Dist.