42 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2025 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Filiaggigreen2 sentences2001"The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of the facts." State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , syllabus; see, also, State v. Filiaggi (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 230 , 243 . 2001"The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of the facts." State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , syllabus; see, also, State v. Filiaggi (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 230 , 243 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2025“The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of the facts.” State v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d 79 (1982). {¶ 35} At trial, the jury heard testimony from three expert witnesses; Dr. Bromberg testified on behalf of Duran. 2025He told the jury that the R-CRAS test was not a scientific instrument because it was subjective, and he stated, “I almost never saw that test applied to a forensic sanity, at the time of the offense, evaluation.” Trial Tr. at 643. {¶ 45} “The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of the facts.” Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d 79 . | 1 | 29 |
State v. Self, Unpublished Decision (3-17-2005)green2 sentences2025Consequently, if there is competing evidence of a defendant’s ability to ascertain the wrongfulness of the act(s), and “the record demonstrates that the jury considered the insanity defense, a reviewing court should defer -15- to the jury’s interpretation of the evidence.” State v. Self, 2005-Ohio-1259, ¶ 13 (4th Dist.). 2014Ross No. 04CA2767, 2005-Ohio-1259, ¶ 13 , quoting State v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , 434 N.E.2d 1356 (1982), syllabus. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences2025State v. Cochran, 2017-Ohio-216, ¶ 51 (2d Dist.). -7- “The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of the facts.” State v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d 79 (1982). {¶ 21} When an appellate court reviews whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, “[t]he court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of the witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence 2005State v. Garrow (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 368 , 370-71 ; State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 175 . {¶ 13} "The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of the facts." State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , syllabus. | 1 | 2 |
Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewinggreen2 sentences2014See Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947) (finding that the establishment clause protects religious belief as well as 11 disbelief).2 The privilege does not allow a parent to attempt to control the child’s every exposure to anything remotely religious or spiritual. 1976See, e. g., Abington School District v. Schempp, supra; Everson v. Board of Edn. (1947), 330 U. S. 1 ; Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), 310 U. S. 296 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Thompkinsred1 sentence2025State v. Cochran, 2017-Ohio-216, ¶ 51 (2d Dist.). -7- “The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of the facts.” State v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d 79 (1982). {¶ 21} When an appellate court reviews whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, “[t]he court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of the witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cochrangreen1 sentence2025State v. Cochran, 2017-Ohio-216, ¶ 51 (2d Dist.). -7- “The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of the facts.” State v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d 79 (1982). {¶ 21} When an appellate court reviews whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, “[t]he court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of the witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence | 1 | 1 |
Tilsen v. Bensongreen1 sentence2024Specifically, the portion of the ketubah that stated, "the parties 'agreed to divorce [or, separate from] one another according to custom all the days of their life [i.e., as a continuing obligation] according to Torah law as is the manner of Jewish people.'" Id. at 767. {¶ 30} Like Kimberly and S.E. in the case at bar, the husband in Tilsen argued that: (1) the enforcement of the ketubah would not violate the First Amendment's establishment clause; and (2) failing to enforce the ketubah would violate his rights under the First Amendment's free exercise clause. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Quarterman (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2024See State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19 . 2024See State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Scottgreen1 sentence2023See Scott, 437 U.S. at 91, 98 , and n. 11, or whether Appellant has simply been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect. | 1 | 1 |
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaughgreen2 sentences2016See Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187 , 658 N.E.2d 237 (1995). 2016See Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187 , 658 N.E.2d 237 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Isaiah Brown v. Polk County, Iowa, a Municipal Corporation Ray Sears, Former County Administrator for Polk County and Polk County Board of Supervisorsgreen2 sentences2013Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 395 , 113 S.Ct. 2141 , 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993) (rejecting school district’s Establishment Clause defense because its “posited fears of an Establishment Clause violation are unfounded”); Brown v. Polk Cty., Iowa, 61 F.3d 650, 659 (8th Cir.1995) (baseless fear of Establishment Clause violation could not justify county’s order for public employee to remove Bible from his desk). {¶ 89} In this case, we must reject the district’s justification because the inconspicuous presence of Freshwater’s personal Bible posed no threat to the Establishment Clause 2013Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 395 , 113 S.Ct. 2141 , 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993) (rejecting school district’s Establishment Clause defense because its “posited fears of an Establishment Clause violation are unfounded”); Brown v. Polk Cty., Iowa, 61 F.3d 650, 659 (8th Cir.1995) (baseless fear of Establishment Clause violation could not justify county’s order for public employee to remove Bible from his desk). {¶ 89} In this case, we must reject the district’s justification because the inconspicuous presence of Freshwater’s personal Bible posed no threat to the Establishment Clause | 1 | 1 |
Peter S. Helland v. South Bend Community School Corporationgreen2 sentences2013Bd. of Edn. of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 , 110 S.Ct. 2356 , 110 L.Ed.2d 191 (1990) (“schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor”); see also Helland v. S. Bend Community School Corp., 93 F.3d 327, 331 (7th Cir.1996) (in Establishment Clause challenge, school’s concern was with teacher reading Bible aloud to students, not with teacher merely carrying Bible with him). 2013Bd. of Edn. of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 , 110 S.Ct. 2356 , 110 L.Ed.2d 191 (1990) (“schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor”); see also Helland v. S. Bend Community School Corp., 93 F.3d 327, 331 (7th Cir.1996) (in Establishment Clause challenge, school’s concern was with teacher reading Bible aloud to students, not with teacher merely carrying Bible with him). | 1 | 1 |
Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergensgreen2 sentences2013Bd. of Edn. of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 , 110 S.Ct. 2356 , 110 L.Ed.2d 191 (1990) (“schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor”); see also Helland v. S. Bend Community School Corp., 93 F.3d 327, 331 (7th Cir.1996) (in Establishment Clause challenge, school’s concern was with teacher reading Bible aloud to students, not with teacher merely carrying Bible with him). 2013Bd. of Edn. of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 , 110 S.Ct. 2356 , 110 L.Ed.2d 191 (1990) (“schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor”); see also Helland v. S. Bend Community School Corp., 93 F.3d 327, 331 (7th Cir.1996) (in Establishment Clause challenge, school’s concern was with teacher reading Bible aloud to students, not with teacher merely carrying Bible with him). | 1 | 1 |
Warnock v. Archergreen2 sentences2013See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 547 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), fn. 13 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“possession of * * * personal property relating to religious observance, such as a Bible or a crucifix, is surely protected by the Free Exercise Clause”); Warnock v. Archer, 380 F.3d 1076, 1082 (8th Cir.2004) (personal religious effects in school superintendent’s office, including Bible, were protected by Free Exercise Clause). {¶ 88} Because the First Amendment protected Freshwater’s conduct, we must determine whether the school had a legitimate ju 2013See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 547 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), fn. 13 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“possession of * * * personal property relating to religious observance, such as a Bible or a crucifix, is surely protected by the Free Exercise Clause”); Warnock v. Archer, 380 F.3d 1076, 1082 (8th Cir.2004) (personal religious effects in school superintendent’s office, including Bible, were protected by Free Exercise Clause). {¶ 88} Because the First Amendment protected Freshwater’s conduct, we must determine whether the school had a legitimate ju | 1 | 1 |
Hudson v. Palmergreen2 sentences2013See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 547 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), fn. 13 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“possession of * * * personal property relating to religious observance, such as a Bible or a crucifix, is surely protected by the Free Exercise Clause”); Warnock v. Archer, 380 F.3d 1076, 1082 (8th Cir.2004) (personal religious effects in school superintendent’s office, including Bible, were protected by Free Exercise Clause). {¶ 88} Because the First Amendment protected Freshwater’s conduct, we must determine whether the school had a legitimate ju 2013See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 547 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), fn. 13 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“possession of * * * personal property relating to religious observance, such as a Bible or a crucifix, is surely protected by the Free Exercise Clause”); Warnock v. Archer, 380 F.3d 1076, 1082 (8th Cir.2004) (personal religious effects in school superintendent’s office, including Bible, were protected by Free Exercise Clause). {¶ 88} Because the First Amendment protected Freshwater’s conduct, we must determine whether the school had a legitimate ju | 1 | 1 |
Nichol v. Arin Intermediate Unit 28green2 sentences2013“Merely employing an individual * * * who unobtrusively displays [his] religious adherence is not tantamount to government endorsement of that religion * * *.” Nichol v. ARIN Intermediate Unit 28, 268 F.Supp.2d 536, 554 (W.D.Pa.2003) (policy prohibiting elementary school teachers and employees from wearing religious jewelry deemed offensive to Free Exercise Clause); see also Draper v. Logan Cty. 2013“Merely employing an individual * * * who unobtrusively displays [his] religious adherence is not tantamount to government endorsement of that religion * * *." Nichol v. ARIN Intermediate Unit 28, 268 F.Supp.2d 536, 554 (W.D.Pa.2003) (policy prohibiting elementary school teachers and employees from wearing religious jewelry deemed offensive to Free Exercise Clause); see also Draper v. Logan Cty. | 1 | 1 |
| Abington School Dist. v. Schemppgreen | 1 | 1 |
| East Ohio Gas Co. v. City of Akrongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2006In State v. Johnson, supra, citing State v. Curry (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 109 , 543 N.E.2d 1228 , and State v. Brown (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 133 , 449 N.E.2d 449 , we stated, "Thus, if the record demonstrates that the trial court, as the trier of fact, considered the insanity defense, the reviewing court should defer to the trial court's interpretation of the evidence. 2006In State v. Johnson, supra, citing State v. Curry (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 109 , 543 N.E.2d 1228 , and State v. Brown (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 133 , 449 N.E.2d 449 , we stated, "Thus, if the record demonstrates that the trial court, as the trier of fact, considered the insanity defense, the reviewing court should defer to the trial court's interpretation of the evidence. | 3 | 1999–2006 |
Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden
green
2 sentences2021Siegel, 85 Ohio St.3d 171 at 180 . - 41 - Clermont CA2020-06-031 find that Alliance's conduct was fair and reasonable under the circumstances. 2017Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 85 Ohio St.3d 171 , 1999-Ohio-260 , 707 N.E.2d 853 . | 2 | 2017–2021 |
State v. Curry
green
2 sentences2006In State v. Johnson, supra, citing State v. Curry (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 109 , 543 N.E.2d 1228 , and State v. Brown (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 133 , 449 N.E.2d 449 , we stated, "Thus, if the record demonstrates that the trial court, as the trier of fact, considered the insanity defense, the reviewing court should defer to the trial court's interpretation of the evidence. 2001"The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of fact." State v. Curry (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 109 , 114 , quoting State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , 80 . | 2 | 2001–2006 |
State v. Petrie
green
1 sentence2024“When expert witnesses differ in their opinions regarding the insanity defense,” the finder of fact “must make a credibility determination when deciding which experts to believe.” State v. Petrie, 2016-Ohio-4941 , 69 N.E.3d 150 , ¶ 5 (9th Dist.), citing State v. Murphy, 4th Dist. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Avitzur v. Avitzur
green
1 sentence2024This renders the present case distinct from [Avitzur v. Avitzur, 58 N.Y.2d 108 (1983)], in which—under the majority's view of the record—the contested portion of the ketubah was more akin to a typical arbitration clause, insofar as it facially required only the submission of the case to the specific Beth Din and did not require the court to discern and enforce what Jewish law requires with respect to property - 13 - Warren CA2023-08-064 division and financial support upon dissolution. * * * Making that determination, especially in the presence of conflicting rabbinical opinions, would render t | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Smith v. Null
green
2 sentences2023Thus, he suggests the claimed Establishment Clause violation should result in the reversal of his sentence. {¶ 14} The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof * * *.” This clause “prohibits the government's aiding one religion, preferring one religion over another, or aiding all religions.” Smith v. Null, 143 Ohio App.3d 264, 267 , 757 N.E.2d 1200 (4th Dist.2001). {¶ 15} Loftis does not cite, and we cannot find, any authority to support 2023Thus, he suggests the claimed Establishment Clause violation should result in the reversal of his sentence. {¶ 14} The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof * * *.” This clause “prohibits the government's aiding one religion, preferring one religion over another, or aiding all religions.” Smith v. Null, 143 Ohio App.3d 264, 267 , 757 N.E.2d 1200 (4th Dist.2001). {¶ 15} Loftis does not cite, and we cannot find, any authority to support | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Cantrall
green
1 sentence2022I am aware that “‘[t]he weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of fact.’” Cantrall, 2017-Ohio- 7399, 96 N.E.3d 1089, at ¶ 53 , quoting State v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d 79, 80 , 434 N.E.2d 1356 (1982). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
United States v. Bailey
green
1 sentence2017Here, the warrant particularly described Defendant [and the defendant’s vehicle] as a specific person [and item] to be searched.” United States v. Perez, 6th Cir. No. 14-3794, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18614 (Oct. 23, 2015). {¶32} Mason has not established that the “claims in the motion would justify relief and are supported by factual allegations,” or the elements essential for the establishment of a claim under Bailey, 652 F.3d 197 (2d Cir.2011). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden
green
1 sentence2017Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 85 Ohio St.3d 171 , 1999-Ohio-260 , 707 N.E.2d 853 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Armstrong
green
1 sentence2017A criminal defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity must prove by a preponderance of the evidence “that at the time of the commission of the offense, the person did not know, as a result of a severe mental disease or 8 defect, the wrongfulness of the person’s acts.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(14); R.C. 2901.05(A). “‘The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of the facts.’” State v. Armstrong, 152 Ohio App.3d 579 , 2003-Ohio-2154 , ¶ 17 (9th Dist.), quoti | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District
green
2 sentences2013Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 395 , 113 S.Ct. 2141 , 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993) (rejecting school district’s Establishment Clause defense because its “posited fears of an Establishment Clause violation are unfounded”); Brown v. Polk Cty., Iowa, 61 F.3d 650, 659 (8th Cir.1995) (baseless fear of Establishment Clause violation could not justify county’s order for public employee to remove Bible from his desk). {¶ 89} In this case, we must reject the district’s justification because the inconspicuous presence of Freshwater’s personal Bible posed no threat to the Establishment Clause 2013Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 395 , 113 S.Ct. 2141 , 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993) (rejecting school district’s Establishment Clause defense because its “posited fears of an Establishment Clause violation are unfounded”); Brown v. Polk Cty., Iowa, 61 F.3d 650, 659 (8th Cir.1995) (baseless fear of Establishment Clause violation could not justify county’s order for public employee to remove Bible from his desk). {¶ 89} In this case, we must reject the district’s justification because the inconspicuous presence of Freshwater’s personal Bible posed no threat to the Establishment Clause | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia
green
1 sentence2013Simply allowing a teacher to keep his personal Bible on his desk would not have a religious purpose, would not advance religion, and would not excessively entangle government with religion. 29 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Garrow
green
1 sentence2005State v. Garrow (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 368 , 370-71 ; State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 175 . {¶ 13} "The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of the facts." State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , syllabus. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Lemon v. Kurtzman red | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| United States v. Evelio Mota and Juan Flores green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Cantwell v. Connecticut green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Clark v. Swartz neutral | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.