non-exclusive list factors in Ohio

2020Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d at 525 (a pre-sentence motion case), applying State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977) (a post-sentence motion case). {¶15} This court has adopted a non-exclusive list of factors to be weighed in reviewing a decision on a presentence plea withdrawal motion: (1) the representation provided by defense counsel; (2) the defendant’s understanding of the nature of the charges and the potential sentence; (3) the extent of the plea hearing; (4) the extent of the plea withdrawal hearing; (5) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion

2020Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d at 525 (a pre-sentence motion case), applying State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977) (a post-sentence motion case). {¶15} This court has adopted a non-exclusive list of factors to be weighed in reviewing a decision on a presentence plea withdrawal motion: (1) the representation provided by defense counsel; (2) the defendant’s understanding of the nature of the charges and the potential sentence; (3) the extent of the plea hearing; (4) the extent of the plea withdrawal hearing; (5) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion

2019Rohrbaugh v. Rohrbaugh, 136 Ohio App.3d 599, 604 , 737 N.E.2d 551 (7th Dist.2000). {¶30} R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) sets forth a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered in determining the best interest of the child.

2019Rohrbaugh v. Rohrbaugh, 136 Ohio App.3d 599, 604 , 737 N.E.2d 551 (7th Dist.2000). {¶30} R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) sets forth a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered in determining the best interest of the child.

2014State v. Cuthbertson, 139 Ohio App.3d 895, 898-899 , 746 N.E.2d 197 (7th Dist.2000), citing the factors first set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995). {¶22} As the list is non-exclusive, a court can find other factors relevant as well.

2014State v. Cuthbertson, 139 Ohio App.3d 895, 898-899 , 746 N.E.2d 197 (7th Dist.2000), citing the factors first set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995). {¶22} As the list is non-exclusive, a court can find other factors relevant as well.

2006The Daubert Court then identified a non-exclusive list of factors for courts to consider when deciding whether proposed scientific expert testimony is sufficiently "reliable." These factors include: (1) "whether a theory or technique * * * can be and has been tested"; (2) "whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review or publication"; (3) "the known or potential rate of error"; and (4) "general acceptance." Id. at 593-594 . {¶ 34} In Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael (1999), 526 U.S. 137 , the Court clarified the applicability of the foregoing factors to non-scientific evi

2002The Daubert Court then identified a non-exclusive list of factors for courts to consider when deciding whether proposed scientific expert testimony is sufficiently "reliable." These factors include: (1) "whether a theory or technique . . . can be `and has been tested'"; (2) "whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review or publication"; (3) "the known or potential rate of error"; and (4) "general acceptance." Id. at 593-594 . {¶ 17} In Kumho , the Court clarified the applicability of the foregoing " Daubert factors" to non-scientific evidence.

2003Id.

2001Id.

2021No. 17AP-288, 2019-Ohio-618, ¶ 10 , quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 17} Burton set forth a non-exclusive list of the factors a court must consider in determining whether a person is subject to hospitalization under R.C. 5122.01(B).

2019Hancock No. 5-08-08, 2009-Ohio-186, ¶ 15 . {¶18} R.C. 3901.04(F)(1) contains a non-exclusive list of factors for the trial court to consider in determining whether a modification to a shared parenting arrangement under R.C. 3901.04 is in the best interests of the child.

2018Group, L.L.C. v. Pittenger , 190 Ohio App.3d 145 , 2010-Ohio-4861 , 940 N.E.2d 1035 , ¶ 28 (5th Dist). {¶ 20} To determine the best interest of a child, the trial court must consider a specific non-exclusive list of factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), including "[t]he wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child[.]" R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) ; see also In re M.J. , 11th Dist.

2018Group, L.L.C. v. Pittenger , 190 Ohio App.3d 145 , 2010-Ohio-4861 , 940 N.E.2d 1035 , ¶ 28 (5th Dist). {¶ 20} To determine the best interest of a child, the trial court must consider a specific non-exclusive list of factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), including "[t]he wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child[.]" R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) ; see also In re M.J. , 11th Dist.

2018“The child’s best interest is the sole issue, and it is evaluated using the non-exclusive list of factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).” Id.

2017Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶37} As stated above, R.C. 3107.161(B) provides a non-exclusive list of factors to consider in a contested adoption.

2017Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶37} As stated above, R.C. 3107.161(B) provides a non-exclusive list of factors to consider in a contested adoption.

2016Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 , 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). {¶ 21} R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) provides a non-exclusive list of factors to consider when determining the best interest of a child.

2016Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 , 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). {¶ 21} R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) provides a non-exclusive list of factors to consider when determining the best interest of a child.

2013We do not agree. {¶14} In State v. Evans, 127 Ohio App.3d 56 (11th Dist.1998), this court set forth a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered when determining whether a police officer has a reasonable suspicion of intoxication justifying the administration of field sobriety tests.

2010No. 13-08-42, 2009-Ohio-5277, ¶12 .

2009“For the purposes of division (B)(1) of [R.C. 2151.414], a child shall be considered to have entered the temporary custody of an agency on the earlier of the date the child is adjudicated pursuant to section 2151.28 of the Revised Code or the date that is sixty days after the removal of the child from home.” Id. {¶10} The court may also grant the agency’s motion if it determines that permanent custody is in the children’s best interests and, after considering the non- exclusive list of factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)-(16), that the children cannot be placed with the children’s parents within a

2008No. 05 BE 31, 2006-Ohio-7075 , at ¶ 9 . {¶ 31} In Evans , this court set forth a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered when determining whether a police officer has a reasonable suspicion of intoxication justifying the administration of field sobriety tests.

2006The Daubert Court then identified a non-exclusive list of factors for courts to consider when deciding whether proposed scientific expert testimony is sufficiently "reliable." These factors include: (1) "whether a theory or technique * * * can be and has been tested"; (2) "whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review or publication"; (3) "the known or potential rate of error"; and (4) "general acceptance." Id. at 593-594 . {¶ 34} In Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael (1999), 526 U.S. 137 , the Court clarified the applicability of the foregoing factors to non-scientific evi

2005CA2004-01-020, 2004-Ohio-5649 , ¶ 14 . {¶ 27} In conducting a totality of the circumstances review of whether a party acted inconsistently with his right to arbitration, the court can consider the following non-exclusive list of factors: {¶ 28} "(1) any delay in the requesting party's demand to arbitrate via a motion to stay judicial proceedings and an order compelling arbitration; (2) the extent of the requesting party's participation in the litigation prior to its filing a motion to stay the judicial proceeding, including a determination of the status of discovery, dispositive motions, and t

2005CA2004-01-020, 2004-Ohio-5649 , ¶ 14 . {¶ 27} In conducting a totality of the circumstances review of whether a party acted inconsistently with his right to arbitration, the court can consider the following non-exclusive list of factors: {¶ 28} "(1) any delay in the requesting party's demand to arbitrate via a motion to stay judicial proceedings and an order compelling arbitration; (2) the extent of the requesting party's participation in the litigation prior to its filing a motion to stay the judicial proceeding, including a determination of the status of discovery, dispositive motions, and t

2002Id. at 587 . {¶ 17} The non-exclusive list of factors found in R.C. § 2950.09 (B)(2) includes: (a) the offender's age; (b) the offender's prior criminal record regarding all offenses, including, but not limited to, all sexual offenses; (c) the age of the victim of the sexually oriented offense for which sentence is to be imposed; (d) whether the sexually oriented offense for which sentence is to be imposed involved multiple victims; (e) whether the offender used drugs or alcohol to impair the victim of the sexually oriented offense or to prevent the victim from resisting; (f) if the offender p

2002During a sexual-predator hearing, a trial court should consider the foregoing factors and "discuss on the record the particular evidence and factors upon which it relies in making its determination regarding the likelihood of recidivism." Eppinger , 91 Ohio St.3d at 166 .

2001Bechtol v. Bechtol (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 21 , syllabus; Rohrbaugh v. Rohrbaugh (2000), 136 Ohio App.3d 599 , 603 .