Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
40 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2025 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp.green2 sentences2023“It is not sufficient for an appellate court to determine that a trial court abused its discretion simply because the appellate court might not have reached the same conclusion or is, itself, less persuaded by the trial court's reasoning process than by the countervailing arguments.” State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio-2407, ¶ 14 , citing AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990). {¶24} First, we note appellant summarized allegedly-relevant testimony from a different trial in his motion before the trial court and in the insta 2023“A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a deferential review.” Id. | 3 | 5 |
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen2 sentences2024Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). ‘A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a -30- Case No. 8-22-44 deferential review.’ State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio- 2407, ¶ 14, 972 N.E.2d 528 . ‘As long as the [juvenile] court considers the appropriate statutory factors and there is some rational basis in the record to support the court’s findings when applying those factors, we cannot conclude that the [juvenile] court abused its discretion in deciding whether to transfer jurisdiction.’ State v. Phillips, 12th Dist. 2024Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). ‘A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a -30- Case No. 8-22-44 deferential review.’ State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio- 2407, ¶ 14, 972 N.E.2d 528 . ‘As long as the [juvenile] court considers the appropriate statutory factors and there is some rational basis in the record to support the court’s findings when applying those factors, we cannot conclude that the [juvenile] court abused its discretion in deciding whether to transfer jurisdiction.’ State v. Phillips, 12th Dist. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2015It is not sufficient for an appellate court to determine that a trial court abused its discretion simply because the No. 14AP-1054 6 appellate court might not have reached the same conclusion or is, itself, less persuaded by the trial court's reasoning process than by the countervailing arguments." Id. {¶ 16} "As a general rule, evidence of previous or subsequent criminal acts, wholly independent of the criminal offense for which a defendant is on trial, is inadmissible." State v. Thompson, 66 Ohio St.2d 496, 497 (1981). | 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. Morris
green
2 sentences2025As the Ohio Supreme Court wrote in State v. Morris, 2012-Ohio-2407 : A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a deferential review. 2025“A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a deferential review.” State v. Morris, 2012-Ohio-2407, ¶ 14 . {¶ 15} At the time of sentencing, T.O. was 16 years old and had completed the eleventh grade. | 35 | 2013–2025 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2017Clermont No. CA2013-07-059, 2014-Ohio-990, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 , 2012-Ohio-5695, ¶ 15 . 2017Clermont No. CA2013-07-059, 2014-Ohio-990, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 , 2012-Ohio-5695, ¶ 15 . | 3 | 2016–2017 |
State v. Ward
green
2 sentences2017Clermont No. CA2013-07-059, 2014-Ohio-990, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 , 2012-Ohio-5695, ¶ 15 . 2017Clermont No. CA2013-07-059, 2014-Ohio-990 , 2014 WL 1356709 , ¶ 19, quoting State v. Williams , 134 Ohio St.3d 521 , 2012-Ohio-5695 , 983 N.E.2d 1278 , ¶ 15. | 3 | 2016–2017 |
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Michaels
green
2 sentences2014It is not sufficient for an appellate court to determine that a trial court abused its discretion simply because the appellate court might not have reached the same –23– conclusion or is, itself, less persuaded by the trial court's reasoning process than by the countervailing arguments.” Id. {¶ 57} In our opinion, the issue in the case before us is a close one. 2013It is not sufficient for an appellate court to determine that a trial court abused its discretion simply because the appellate court might not have reached the same conclusion or is, itself, less persuaded by the trial court's reasoning process than by the countervailing arguments.” Id. {¶ 73} After reviewing the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s –28– rejection of a Reckless Homicide instruction. | 3 | 2013–2014 |
State v. Shuster
green
2 sentences2023Morgan No. 18AP0007, 2019-Ohio-4233, ¶ 9 . {¶23} A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a deferential review. 2022Morgan No. 18AP0007, 2019-Ohio-4233, ¶9 . {¶34} A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a deferential review. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Fantozzi v. Sandusky Cement Products Co.
green
2 sentences2017"A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a deferential review." State v. Morris , 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio-2407 , 972 N.E.2d 528 , ¶ 14. {¶ 33} "Compensatory damages are defined as those which measure the actual loss * * * [and] may, among other allowable elements, encompass direct pecuniary loss, * * * loss due to the permanency of the injuries, * * * and physical and mental pain and suffering ." (Emphasis added.) Fantozzi v. Sandusky Cement Products Co. , 64 Ohio St.3d 601 , 612, 597 N.E.2d 474 (1992), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated by Evans v. Thobe , 195 2017"A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a deferential review." State v. Morris , 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio-2407 , 972 N.E.2d 528 , ¶ 14. {¶ 33} "Compensatory damages are defined as those which measure the actual loss * * * [and] may, among other allowable elements, encompass direct pecuniary loss, * * * loss due to the permanency of the injuries, * * * and physical and mental pain and suffering ." (Emphasis added.) Fantozzi v. Sandusky Cement Products Co. , 64 Ohio St.3d 601 , 612, 597 N.E.2d 474 (1992), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated by Evans v. Thobe , 195 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Evans v. Thobe
green
2 sentences2017"A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a deferential review." State v. Morris , 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio-2407 , 972 N.E.2d 528 , ¶ 14. {¶ 33} "Compensatory damages are defined as those which measure the actual loss * * * [and] may, among other allowable elements, encompass direct pecuniary loss, * * * loss due to the permanency of the injuries, * * * and physical and mental pain and suffering ." (Emphasis added.) Fantozzi v. Sandusky Cement Products Co. , 64 Ohio St.3d 601 , 612, 597 N.E.2d 474 (1992), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated by Evans v. Thobe , 195 2017"A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a deferential review." State v. Morris , 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio-2407 , 972 N.E.2d 528 , ¶ 14. {¶ 33} "Compensatory damages are defined as those which measure the actual loss * * * [and] may, among other allowable elements, encompass direct pecuniary loss, * * * loss due to the permanency of the injuries, * * * and physical and mental pain and suffering ." (Emphasis added.) Fantozzi v. Sandusky Cement Products Co. , 64 Ohio St.3d 601 , 612, 597 N.E.2d 474 (1992), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated by Evans v. Thobe , 195 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2017Id., citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). " 'A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a deferential review. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.