189 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2026 46 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. Thompkinsred2 sentences2025State v. Flood, 2019-Ohio-2524, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). {¶ 32} “Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a verdict.” State v. Cassell, 2010-Ohio- 1881, ¶ 36 (10th Dist.), citing Thompkins at 386 . 2024State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 17} Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally adequate to support a verdict. | 102 | 177 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2026When reviewing a No. 25AP-476 10 challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 1997-Ohio-355, ¶ 49, fn. 4 . 2025When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 1997-Ohio-355, ¶ 49, fn. 4 . | 2 | 6 |
State v. Herreragreen2 sentences2025See State v. Cummings, 2024-Ohio-6106, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.) (“Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a verdict”) (emphasis added and citation omitted); State v. Herrera, 2022-Ohio-4769, ¶ 26 (6th Dist.) (same). {¶19} In any event, Maynard’s theory that he engaged in innocent drinking after any driving had occurred is contradicted by statements that he himself made at the roadside. 2025See State v. Cummings, 2024-Ohio-6106, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.) (“Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a verdict”) (emphasis added and citation omitted); State v. Herrera, 2022-Ohio-4769, ¶ 26 (6th Dist.) (same). {¶19} In any event, Maynard’s theory that he engaged in innocent drinking after any driving had occurred is contradicted by statements that he himself made at the roadside. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cummingsgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Cummings, 2024-Ohio-6106, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.) (“Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a verdict”) (emphasis added and citation omitted); State v. Herrera, 2022-Ohio-4769, ¶ 26 (6th Dist.) (same). {¶19} In any event, Maynard’s theory that he engaged in innocent drinking after any driving had occurred is contradicted by statements that he himself made at the roadside. 2025See State v. Cummings, 2024-Ohio-6106, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.) (“Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a verdict”) (emphasis added and citation omitted); State v. Herrera, 2022-Ohio-4769, ¶ 26 (6th Dist.) (same). {¶19} In any event, Maynard’s theory that he engaged in innocent drinking after any driving had occurred is contradicted by statements that he himself made at the roadside. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Parkergreen1 sentence2026See State v. Parker, 2022-Ohio-1237, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Floodgreen1 sentence2025State v. Flood, 2019-Ohio-2524, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). {¶ 32} “Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a verdict.” State v. Cassell, 2010-Ohio- 1881, ¶ 36 (10th Dist.), citing Thompkins at 386 . | 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. Thompkins
green
2 sentences2026Sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting conviction {¶ 26} In his second assignment of error, Hipps asserts the jury’s verdicts on the murder charges were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶ 27} “Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a verdict.” State v. Cassell, 2010-Ohio- 1881, ¶ 36 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 1997-Ohio-52, ¶ 33 . 2025No. 23AP-496 8 {¶ 20} “Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a verdict.” State v. Cassell, 2010-Ohio- 1881, ¶ 36 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 1997-Ohio-52, ¶ 23 . | 16 | 2003–2026 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2016State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997), superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997). 2008State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 386 , 1997-Ohio-52 , superceded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith , 80 Ohio St.3d 89 , 1997-Ohio-355 . | 7 | 1999–2016 |
Eastley v. Volkman
green
2 sentences2021Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 11 ; State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). 2021Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 11 ; State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). | 6 | 2017–2021 |
State v. Jenks
red
2 sentences2026When reviewing a No. 25AP-476 10 challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 1997-Ohio-355, ¶ 49, fn. 4 . 2025When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 1997-Ohio-355, ¶ 49, fn. 4 . | 5 | 2017–2026 |
State v. Nichols
green
2 sentences2024No. 19AP-113, 2020-Ohio-4362, ¶ 45 , quoting State v. Cassell, 10th Dist. 2024No. 19AP-113, 2020-Ohio-4362, ¶ 45 , quoting State v. Cassell, 10th Dist. | 3 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Kurtz
green
2 sentences2022No. 17AP- 382, 2018-Ohio-3942, ¶ 15 , citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). 2019No. 17AP-382, 2018-Ohio-3942, ¶ 15 , citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). | 3 | 2019–2022 |
State v. Darrington, Unpublished Decision (9-28-2006)
green
2 sentences2020No. 06AP-160, 2006-Ohio-5042, ¶ 15 . {¶ 22} Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally adequate to support a verdict. 2020No. 06AP-160, 2006-Ohio-5042, ¶ 15 . {¶ 21} Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally adequate to support a verdict. | 3 | 2013–2020 |
State v. Kearns
green
2 sentences2018State v. Kearns , 10th Dist., 2016-Ohio-5941 , 71 N.E.3d 681 , ¶ 44 ; Watkins at ¶ 17. {¶ 38} Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence is adequate to sustain a verdict as a matter of law. 2017No. 15AP- 244, 2016-Ohio-5941, ¶ 44 ; Watkins at ¶ 17. {¶ 33} Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence is adequate to sustain a verdict as a matter of law. | 2 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Thompkins
green
2 sentences2003We disagree. {¶ 9} Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard which is applied to determine "whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law." State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997-Ohio-52 , reconsideration denied (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 1451 , citing Black's Law Dictionary (6 Ed. 1990) 1433. 2001Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard which is applied to determine "whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law." State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , reconsideration denied (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 1451 , citing Black's Law Dictionary (6 Ed. 1990) 1433. | 2 | 2001–2003 |
State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (9-9-2004)
green
1 sentence2024No. 03AP-1157, 2004-Ohio-4786, ¶ 16 . “ ‘Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that No. 22AP-721 6 tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a verdict.’ ” State v. Nichols, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Guy
green
1 sentence2021No. 17AP-322, 2018-Ohio-4836, ¶ 40 . {¶ 20} "Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence is legally adequate to support a verdict." State v. Kurtz, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Tenace
green
1 sentence2019The denial of a motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A) “is governed by the same standard as the one for determining whether a verdict is supported by sufficient evidence.” State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 , 2006-Ohio-2417 , 847 N.E.2d 386 , ¶ 37. {¶ 33} Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a verdict. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Carter
green
1 sentence2008State v. Carter (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 553 . *Page 4 {¶ 11} Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal test dealing with adequacy, as opposed to weight of the evidence. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.