de novo standard in Ohio

2026Brisco v. U.S. Restoration & Remodeling, Inc., 2015-Ohio-3567, ¶ 19 (10th Dist.), citing Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38, 41 (9th Dist. 1995).

2015No. 12AP- 559, 2013-Ohio-4335, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.), citing Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38, 41-42 (9th Dist.1995). {¶ 8} We also review judgments dismissing a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the de novo standard.

2026State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108-109 (1990); State v. Groves, 2019-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 (5th Dist.). {¶ 11} Crim.R. 11 requires guilty pleas to be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

2026A. Crim.R. 11 Standard and the Plea Process {¶ 7} “When reviewing whether a plea was entered in compliance with Crim.R. 11(C), we apply a de novo standard of review.” State v. Acosta, 2023-Ohio-737, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108-109 (1990). {¶ 8} “Because a no-contest or guilty plea involves a waiver of constitutional rights, a defendant’s decision to enter a plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 10 , citing Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 28-29 , (1992); State v. Clark, 2008-Ohio-3748 , ¶ 25; and State v. Engle, 74

2026State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108-109 (1990); State v. Lebron, 2020-Ohio-1507 , ¶ 9 (8th Dist.); State v. Groves, 2019-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 (5th Dist.).

2026State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108-109 (1990); State v. Groves, 2019-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 (5th Dist.). {¶ 11} Crim.R. 11 requires guilty pleas to be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

2024“A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is procedural and tests the sufficiency of the complaint. * * * Under a de novo analysis, we must accept all factual allegations of the complaint as true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.” NorthPoint Props. v. Petticord, 179 Ohio App.3d 342 , 2008-Ohio-5996 , 901 N.E.2d 869, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.).

2024“A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is procedural and tests the sufficiency of the complaint. * * * Under a de novo analysis, we must accept all factual allegations of the complaint as true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.” NorthPoint Props. v. Petticord, 179 Ohio App.3d 342 , 2008-Ohio-5996 , 901 N.E.2d 869, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.).

2026Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), “[s]ummary judgment is appropriate where ‘the moving party demonstrates that: (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.’ ” Id., quoting Capella III at ¶ 16, citing Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 2004-Ohio-7108, ¶ 6 .

2026Appellant argues appellee lacked any objective evidence to show appellant “actually agreed to connect the sewer tap to the sewer line running along the back of his property.” (Appellant’s Brief at 52.) {¶ 45} In response, appellee argues “[t]he difference of testimony and opinion between [appellant] and [appellee] is the essence of what the law construes as a genuine issue of material fact,” and therefore the trial court’s decision in denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment “was appropriate.” (Appellee’s Brief at 24.) {¶ 46} This court reviews a trial court’s grant or denial of summary

2002An appellate court reviews a lower court’s entry of summary judgment applying the de novo standard thereby employing the same standard used by the trial court. *500 See Klingshirn v. Westview Concrete Corp. (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 178, 180 , 680 N.E.2d 691 . {¶ 8} Res judicata precludes relitigating a point of law or fact that was at issue in a former action involving the same parties and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

2002An appellate court reviews a lower court’s entry of summary judgment applying the de novo standard thereby employing the same standard used by the trial court. *500 See Klingshirn v. Westview Concrete Corp. (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 178, 180 , 680 N.E.2d 691 . {¶ 8} Res judicata precludes relitigating a point of law or fact that was at issue in a former action involving the same parties and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

2024(T.d.29)” {¶9} “A trial court's decision to grant summary judgment is reviewed by an appellate court under a de novo standard of review.” McFadden v. Discerni, 2023-Ohio- 1086, 212 N.E.3d 412, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.), citing Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 , 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996).

2024Standard of Review {¶9} We review a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment under a de novo standard of review. {¶10} “A trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment is reviewed by an appellate court under a de novo standard of review.” McFadden v. Discerni, 2023-Ohio- 1086, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.) (citing Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 ). “‘A de novo review requires the appellate court to conduct an independent review of the evidence before the trial court without deference to the trial court’s decision.’” Id. quoting Peer v. Sayers, 2011-Ohio-5439 , ¶ 27 (11th Dist

2023Citizens for a Safe Environment v. Schregardus, Dir., 136 Ohio App.3d 645, 648 (10th Dist.2000) (“An appealing party is not harmed by ERAC’s failure to conduct a de novo hearing where the result of the case would not have been any different had the required hearing been held.”). {¶ 16} Summary judgment “is a procedural device designed to terminate litigation and to avoid a formal trial where there is nothing left to try.” Maust v. Bank One Columbus, N.A., 83 Ohio App.3d 103, 107 (10th Dist.1992), citing Norris v. Ohio Std.

2001Maust v. Bank One Columbus, N.A . (1992) 83 Ohio App.3d 103 , 107 .

2018In applying the de novo standard, the appellate court is required to "'us[e] the same standard that the trial court should have used, and * * * examine the evidence to determine whether as a matter of law no genuine issues exist for trial.'" Bravard v. Curran, 155 Ohio App.3d 713 , 2004-Ohio-181, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.), quoting Brewer v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio App.3d 378, 383 (8th Dist.1997). {¶ 12} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56, a trial court may grant summary judgment only when (1) there is no genuine issue of any material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and

2018In applying the de novo standard, the appellate court is required to "'us[e] the same standard that the trial court should have used, and * * * examine the evidence to determine whether as a matter of law no genuine issues exist for trial.'" Bravard v. Curran, 155 Ohio App.3d 713 , 2004-Ohio-181, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.), quoting Brewer v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio App.3d 378, 383 (8th Dist.1997). {¶ 12} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56, a trial court may grant summary judgment only when (1) there is no genuine issue of any material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and

2025“Under a de novo standard of review, we give no deference to a trial court’s decision.” Brownlee v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 2012- Ohio-2212, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), citing Akron v. Frazier, 142 Ohio App.3d 718, 721 (9th Dist. 2001).

2025“Under a de novo standard of review, we give no deference to a trial court’s decision.” Brownlee v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 2012-Ohio-2212, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), citing Akron v. Frazier, 142 Ohio App.3d 718, 721 (9th Dist. 2001).

2026“The standard for reviewing whether the trial court accepted a plea in compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) is a de novo standard of review.” State v. Cardwell, 2009-Ohio-6827 , ¶ 26 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977).

2025Veney, ¶ 15; State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 93 (1977). {¶15} When reviewing a plea’s compliance with Criminal Rule 11(C), we apply a de novo standard of review.

2012Shumaker v. Saks Inc., 163 Ohio App.3d 173 , 2005-Ohio-4391 , 837 N.E.2d 393 (8th Dist.), citing Vanyo v. Clear Channel Worldwide, 156 Ohio App.3d 706 , 2004-Ohio-1793 , 808 N.E.2d 482 (8th Dist.). {¶8} Likewise, the Ohio Supreme Court has articulated that a de novo standard of review applies when arguing the unconscionability of an arbitration clause.

2012Shumaker v. Saks Inc., 163 Ohio App.3d 173 , 2005-Ohio-4391 , 837 N.E.2d 393 (8th Dist.), citing Vanyo v. Clear Channel Worldwide, 156 Ohio App.3d 706 , 2004-Ohio-1793 , 808 N.E.2d 482 (8th Dist.). {¶8} Likewise, the Ohio Supreme Court has articulated that a de novo standard of review applies when arguing the unconscionability of an arbitration clause.

2025That is, the application of the law to the trial court's findings of fact is subject to a de novo standard of review Ornelas, supra. Moreover, due weight should be given “to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.” Ornelas, supra at 698 .

2025That is, the application of the law to the trial court's findings of fact is subject to a de novo standard of review Ornelas, supra. Moreover, due weight should be given “to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.” Ornelas, supra at 698 .

2024Id. {¶33} This Court uses a de novo standard of review to determine whether an arbitration agreement alleged to be unconscionable is enforceable.

2024Id. {¶33} This Court uses a de novo standard of review to determine whether an arbitration agreement alleged to be unconscionable is enforceable.

2024Fifth Assignment of Error {¶44} In the fifth assignment of error, Smith argues that the trial court erred in failing to merge his felonious assault and abduction offenses because he had one animus and engaged in one continuing course of conduct. i. Standard of Review {¶45} An appellate court “appl[ies] a de novo standard of review in reviewing a trial court’s R.C. 2941.25 merger determination.” State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 , 2012-Ohio-5699, ¶ 28 .

2024Fifth Assignment of Error {¶44} In the fifth assignment of error, Smith argues that the trial court erred in failing to merge his felonious assault and abduction offenses because he had one animus and engaged in one continuing course of conduct. i. Standard of Review {¶45} An appellate court “appl[ies] a de novo standard of review in reviewing a trial court’s R.C. 2941.25 merger determination.” State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 , 2012-Ohio-5699, ¶ 28 .

2026However, whether a court reviewing a manifest-weight challenge should give any deference to a fact-finder’s credibility determinations is a question of law; therefore, our review of this manifest-weight challenge is appropriate, and we apply a de novo standard of review, see Arnott v. Arnott, 2012-Ohio-3208, ¶ 17 .

2024Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 , 506 N.E.2d 212 (1987). {¶19} The Ohio Supreme Court in Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 , 2012- Ohio-3208, 972 N.E.2d 586 clarified the standard of review an appellate court must apply when reviewing a declaratory judgment matter. ... [A]n appellate court reviewing a declaratory-judgment matter should apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in regard to the trial court’s holding concerning the appropriateness of the case for declaratory judgment, i.e., the matter’s justiciability, and should apply a de novo standard of review in regard to

2026However, this court reviews the trial court’s legal conclusions under the de novo standard of review and determines whether the established “facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.” State v. Miller, 2018-Ohio-4898 , ¶ 22 (8th Dist.), citing Burnside at id., citing State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706, 707 (4th Dist. 1997).

2009However, with respect to the trial court’s findings of law, we must apply a de novo standard of review and decide, “whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.” Burnside, at ¶ 8, citing State v. McNamara (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 706, 710 , 707 N.E.2d 539 . {¶10} To challenge the admissibility of an alcohol test, “[t]he defendant must first challenge the validity of the alcohol test by way of a pretrial motion to suppress; failure to file such a motion ‘waives the requirement on the state to lay a 1 In Case Number 20910028, underage consumption, Minnick was ordered to attend Project