110 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1905–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen2 sentences2026“An abuse of discretion implies a decision that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). {¶50} Father contends that after the magistrate found Mother in contempt for failing to permit the children to attend Father’s visit in August of 2024, the magistrate failed to issue an appropriate contempt sanction, and that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Father’s objection to the contempt sanction. 2025It is not enough that the reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de novo, would not have found that reasoning process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning processes that would support a contrary result.’ ” Id., quoting Musgrove at ¶ 8 , citing AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Redevelopment, 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990). {¶ 12} With the foregoing standards in mind, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s overruling of Father’s motion for legal custody of Z.L.A. | 2 | 6 |
Braatz v. Braatzgreen2 sentences2022Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40, 44 , 706 N.E.2d 1218 (1999) (“‘Visitation’ and ‘custody’ are related but distinct legal concepts.”), quoting In re Gibson, R.C. 2151.011(B)(21) defines “legal custody” as follows: “Legal custody” means a legal status that vests in the custodian the right to have physical care and control of the child and to determine where and with whom the child shall live, and the right and duty to protect, train, and discipline the child and to provide the child with food, shelter, education, and medical care, all subject to any residual parental rights, privileges, and r 2022Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40, 44 , 706 N.E.2d 1218 (1999) (“‘Visitation’ and ‘custody’ are related but distinct legal concepts.”), quoting In re Gibson, R.C. 2151.011(B)(21) defines “legal custody” as follows: “Legal custody” means a legal status that vests in the custodian the right to have physical care and control of the child and to determine where and with whom the child shall live, and the right and duty to protect, train, and discipline the child and to provide the child with food, shelter, education, and medical care, all subject to any residual parental rights, privileges, and r | 1 | 2 |
Miller v. Millergreen2 sentences2018Franklin No. 10AP-610, 2011-Ohio-2414 , ¶ 7, citing Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 , 523 N.E.2d 846 (1988). {¶21} Here, the juvenile court granted Father’s objection to the administrative order, denied his motion for child support, and granted Mother’s motion for past care. 2018Franklin No. 10AP-610, 2011-Ohio-2414 , ¶ 7, citing Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 , 523 N.E.2d 846 (1988). {¶21} Here, the juvenile court granted Father’s objection to the administrative order, denied his motion for child support, and granted Mother’s motion for past care. | 1 | 2 |
Brodbeck v. Brodbeckgreen1 sentence2026"A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is not a proper ground on which to reverse the judgment of a lower court in a civil case that does not result in incarceration in its application when the attorney was employed by a civil litigant." Brodbeck v. Brodbeck, 2025-Ohio-980, ¶ 23 (5th Dist.), citing Phillis v. Phillis, 2005-Ohio-6200 (5th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
In re T.R.green1 sentence2026See, e.g., In re A.M., 2025-Ohio-5029, ¶ 22 (9th Dist.); In re T.R., 2024-Ohio-3092, ¶ 24 (9th Dist.); In re J.W., 2019-Ohio-210, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). {¶34} Moreover, the record does not support Father’s claim that he had made progress working toward reunification with the children. | 1 | 1 |
In re Adoption of Gibsongreen1 sentence2026In re Adoption of Gibson, 23 Ohio St.3d 170, 172 (1986); Davis v. Wilkerson, 29 Ohio App.3d 100, 101 (9th Dist. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Clevelandgreen1 sentence2026“The underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court rests with the knowledge that the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.” Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). “‘If the evidence is susceptible of more than one construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it that interpretation which is consistent with the verdict and judgment, most favorable to sustaining the verdict and judgment | 1 | 1 |
In re J.W.green1 sentence2026See, e.g., In re A.M., 2025-Ohio-5029, ¶ 22 (9th Dist.); In re T.R., 2024-Ohio-3092, ¶ 24 (9th Dist.); In re J.W., 2019-Ohio-210, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). {¶34} Moreover, the record does not support Father’s claim that he had made progress working toward reunification with the children. | 1 | 1 |
In re A.M.green1 sentence2026See, e.g., In re A.M., 2025-Ohio-5029, ¶ 22 (9th Dist.); In re T.R., 2024-Ohio-3092, ¶ 24 (9th Dist.); In re J.W., 2019-Ohio-210, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). {¶34} Moreover, the record does not support Father’s claim that he had made progress working toward reunification with the children. | 1 | 1 |
Farmer v. PNC Bank, N.A.green1 sentence2026We conclude that Father’s conduct fell “substantially below what is reasonable under the circumstances [and] evidences a complete disregard for the judicial system [and] the rights of the opposing party.” Farmer v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2017-Ohio-4203, ¶ 29 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
ITS Fin., L.L.C. v. Gebregreen1 sentence2026ITS Fin., LLC v. Gebre, 2014-Ohio-2205, ¶ 37 (2nd Dist.). {¶51} We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s overruling of Father’s objection regarding the contempt sanction. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Wilkersongreen1 sentence2026In re Adoption of Gibson, 23 Ohio St.3d 170, 172 (1986); Davis v. Wilkerson, 29 Ohio App.3d 100, 101 (9th Dist. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. Millergreen | 1 | 1 |
In re A.A.green1 sentence2025Indeed, a “juvenile court is not required to prolong the custody proceedings for a parent to begin to cooperate in the case planning process.” In re May.R., 2019-Ohio-3601, ¶ 30 (6th Dist.), citing In re A.A., 2017-Ohio-8705, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.). {¶ 65} Here, as already discussed, Father refused treatment for his mental health conditions as required by his case plan. | 1 | 1 |
| Hock v. Solesgreen | 1 | 1 |
In re M.S.green1 sentence2025As the agency must support its motion for permanent custody by the higher clear and convincing evidentiary standard, it is well settled that “if permanent custody is in the best interest of the child, legal custody to a relative necessarily is not.” In re M.S., 2023-Ohio-1558, ¶ 26 (9th Dist.), citing In re D.T., 2021-Ohio-1650, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). 11 {¶33} Based on the above discussion, this Court concludes that the juvenile court did not err by granting CSB’s motion for permanent custody and terminating the Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. | 1 | 1 |
In re O.V.green1 sentence2025See, e.g., In re P.O., 2024-Ohio-4472, ¶ 32-33 (9th Dist.); In re T.M., 2024-Ohio-2479, ¶ 27-32 (9th Dist.); and In re O.V., 2024-Ohio-2620, ¶ 36-39 (9th Dist.). {¶26} In its judgment entry ruling on Father’s objection to the magistrate’s decision, the juvenile court orders only that it “overrules said objection.” The judgment does not reiterate any prior orders relevant to the children’s custodial dispositions or the parents’ residual rights and responsibilities. | 1 | 1 |
| In re T.M.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bruns v. Green (Slip Opinion)green | 1 | 1 |
| In re D.T.green | 1 | 1 |
In re P.O.green1 sentence2025See, e.g., In re P.O., 2024-Ohio-4472, ¶ 32-33 (9th Dist.); In re T.M., 2024-Ohio-2479, ¶ 27-32 (9th Dist.); and In re O.V., 2024-Ohio-2620, ¶ 36-39 (9th Dist.). {¶26} In its judgment entry ruling on Father’s objection to the magistrate’s decision, the juvenile court orders only that it “overrules said objection.” The judgment does not reiterate any prior orders relevant to the children’s custodial dispositions or the parents’ residual rights and responsibilities. | 1 | 1 |
AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp.green1 sentence2025It is not enough that the reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de novo, would not have found that reasoning process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning processes that would support a contrary result.’ ” Id., quoting Musgrove at ¶ 8 , citing AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Redevelopment, 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990). {¶ 12} With the foregoing standards in mind, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s overruling of Father’s motion for legal custody of Z.L.A. | 1 | 1 |
In re M.R.green1 sentence2025Indeed, a “juvenile court is not required to prolong the custody proceedings for a parent to begin to cooperate in the case planning process.” In re May.R., 2019-Ohio-3601, ¶ 30 (6th Dist.), citing In re A.A., 2017-Ohio-8705, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.). {¶ 65} Here, as already discussed, Father refused treatment for his mental health conditions as required by his case plan. | 1 | 1 |
In re N.B.green1 sentence2025In re N.B., 2015-Ohio-314, ¶ 59 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
| In re E.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| In re K.A.V.green | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. Murphygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| In re Hayesred | 1 | 1 |
| Zittkowski v. Zittkowskigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kokoski v. Kokoskigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baines v. Harwoodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kenney v. Carrollgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Batcher v. Piercegreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re K.R.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ockunzzi v. Ockunzzi, Unpublished Decision (11-2-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Matter of Calhoun, 2008 Ca 00118 (10-20-2008)
green
2 sentences2023Stark No. 2008CA00118, 2008-Ohio-5458 . {¶49} Because Father has not challenged the twelve of twenty-two-month finding, we would not need to address the merits of Father’s claim with regards to the trial court’s determination that the children could not or should not be placed with Father within a reasonable time. 2021Stark No. 2008CA00118, 2008-Ohio-5458 . {¶70} Because Father has not challenged the twelve of twenty-two-month finding, we would not need to address the merits of Father’s claim with regards to the trial court’s determination that O.S. could not or should not be placed with Father within a reasonable time. | 3 | 2021–2023 |
Davis v. Flickinger
green
2 sentences2025“Therefore, an award of legal custody will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” Id. (emphasis added). 26. {¶ 72} For these reasons, we find that our review of the trial court’s granting of Father’s motion for legal custody is for an abuse of the trial court’s discretion and not, as Mother suggests, whether that decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 2021To constitute a change of circumstances under Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a), the “change must be a change of substance, not a slight or inconsequential change.” Id. at 418 . {¶7} As previously noted, the hearing on Father’s motion was before a magistrate. | 2 | 2021–2025 |
Goldfuss v. Davidson
green
2 sentences2023Plain error is not favored and is only applicable in rare cases where the error “seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” Id. at syllabus. {¶11} Father’s motion to modify custody was governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), which provides in relevant part that the trial court shall not modify a prior custody determination unless it finds based on facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a chan 2019Plain error is only found in "exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself." Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997), syllabus. {¶ 15} With respect to the denial of Father's motion to be transported to the hearing from prison, parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody and management of their children. | 2 | 2019–2023 |
Santosky v. Kramer
green
2 sentences2021Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-754 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982). 2021Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-754 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982). | 2 | 2019–2021 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2019To protect the children’s privacy, we will use initials for the children’s names and will refer to the parents as “Mother” and “Father.” {¶ 2} Father raises the following assignments of error: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Father’s motion for a continuance the day of the permanent custody hearing; (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) the trial court erred in granting permanent custody of A.C. and N.C. to Appellee, Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services – Child Services Division (“MCCS”). {¶ 3} Mother’s counsel filed a bri 2019To protect the children’s privacy, we will use initials for the children’s names and will refer to the parents as “Mother” and “Father.” {¶ 2} Father raises the following assignments of error: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Father’s motion for a continuance the day of the permanent custody hearing; (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) the trial court erred in granting permanent custody of A.C. and N.C. to Appellee, Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services – Child Services Division (“MCCS”). {¶ 3} Mother’s counsel filed a bri | 2 | 2017–2019 |
State v. Unger
green
2 sentences2019On appeal, Synuria raises the following assignments of error: {¶10} “[1.] The trial court committed reversible error in denying Father’s motion for continuance.” 3 {¶11} “[2.] The trial court committed reversible error and plain error in failing to appoint counsel for M.A.S.” {¶12} In the first assignment of error, Synuria challenges the denial of the motion for a continuance of the permanent custody hearing. {¶13} Juvenile Rule 23 provides: “Continuances shall be granted only when imperative to secure fair treatment for the parties.” {¶14} “In evaluating a motion for a continuance, a court sh 2019On appeal, Synuria raises the following assignments of error: {¶10} “[1.] The trial court committed reversible error in denying Father’s motion for continuance.” 3 {¶11} “[2.] The trial court committed reversible error and plain error in failing to appoint counsel for M.A.S.” {¶12} In the first assignment of error, Synuria challenges the denial of the motion for a continuance of the permanent custody hearing. {¶13} Juvenile Rule 23 provides: “Continuances shall be granted only when imperative to secure fair treatment for the parties.” {¶14} “In evaluating a motion for a continuance, a court sh | 2 | 2013–2019 |
Phillis v. Phillis
green
1 sentence2026"A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is not a proper ground on which to reverse the judgment of a lower court in a civil case that does not result in incarceration in its application when the attorney was employed by a civil litigant." Brodbeck v. Brodbeck, 2025-Ohio-980, ¶ 23 (5th Dist.), citing Phillis v. Phillis, 2005-Ohio-6200 (5th Dist.). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Quonset Hut, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence2026Instead of granting the dismissal at that time, the trial court granted Mother’s 15 alternative motion and ordered Father to produce discovery. “[A party] has notice of an impending dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with a discovery order when [that party’s] counsel has been informed that dismissal is a possibility and has had a reasonable opportunity to defend against dismissal.” Quonset Hut, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997), syllabus. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2026A Civ.R. 60(B) Motion Is Not a Substitute for a Direct Appeal {¶ 19} Father's motion fails on a threshold procedural ground: res judicata bars him from using Civ.R. 60(B) to litigate, for the first time, the argument that the magistrate failed to consider the factors in R.C. 2151.361(B). {¶ 20} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that "a Civ.R. 60(B) motion cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal and . . . the doctrine of res judicata applies to such a motion." Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 2014-Ohio-4275 , ¶ 16. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In re R.O.
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| In re B.M. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Boyden v. Boyden green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Wintermeyer (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2025As a foundational principle of appeals, “a party ordinarily may not present an argument on appeal that it failed to raise below.” State v. Wintermeyer, 2019-Ohio-5156, ¶ 10 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State ex rel. Mobley v. Tyack neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Cook v. Wilson green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In re E.H. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Meilen v. Meilen green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In re Ca.S. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In re Adoption of Y.E.F. (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Divincenzo v. Divincenzo green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Pickens neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Smith v. Smith neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In re James green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Oyedare v. Oyedare green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Roberts v. Roberts green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In Re J.J., Unpublished Decision (2-8-2007) green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Salloum v. Falkowski (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Pitts v. Ohio Department of Transportation green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In re M.B. neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Waxman v. Link neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re the Adoption of S.B.D., Unpublished Decision (9-29-2006) green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Matter of T.M., Ca2007-01-019 (11-13-2007) neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Sherlock v. Myers, Unpublished Decision (9-29-2004) green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State Ex Rel. Buck v. McCabe green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Williams v. Williams green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Ungar v. Sarafite green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Hudson v. Cooper neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In re I.L.J. neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In re Adoption of M.G.B.-E. neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.