abuse of discretion standard in Ohio

2026The term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). “‘When applying an abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court is precluded from simply substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court.’” Kilgore at ¶ 7 , quoting State v. Roper, 2021-Ohio-188, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.), citing Pons v. Ohio State Med.

2026Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). {¶ 18} While we apply an abuse of discretion standard, we have also stated: “When considering what sanction to impose for a party’s failure to comply with discovery, ‘“the trial court must consider the posture of the case and what efforts, if any, preceded the noncompliance and then balance the severity of the violation against the degree of possible sanctions, selecting that sanction which is most appropriate.”’” Stratacache, Inc. v. Wenzel, 2019-Ohio-3523, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting Dayton Modulars, Inc. v. Dayton View Community Dev.

2026“It 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.; see also Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 169 (1990) (when applying the abuse of discretion standard, “an appellate court is not free to substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge”).

2025“When applying the abuse-of-discretion standard of review, appellate courts are not free to merely substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.” Bennett, supra, citing In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137-38 (1991), in turn citing Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 169 (1990).

2026State v. Miller, 2025-Ohio-339, ¶ 20 (11th Dist.), citing Marcum at ¶ 10 (“we hold that appellate courts may not apply the abuse-of-discretion standard in sentencing-term challenges”); State v. Garcia, 2021-Ohio-4480, ¶ 76 (11th Dist.). {¶13} As to consecutive sentences, in conducting our review, this court considers whether the record supports the trial court’s consecutive sentencing findings.

2025In addition, both appellate courts reviewed the defendant’s sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard, which the Supreme Court of Ohio later abrogated in Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, at ¶ 10 (“we hold that appellate courts may not apply the abuse-of-discretion standard in sentencing-term challenges”).

2025Generally, “[w]hen reviewing the propriety of a trial court’s determination in a domestic relations case, an abuse of discretion standard is used.” Taylor v. Taylor, 2018-Ohio-2530, ¶ 5 (10th Dist.), citing Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144 (1989).

2025Discussion A. Standard of Review {¶ 10} “When reviewing the propriety of a trial court’s determination in a domestic relations case, an abuse of discretion standard is used.” Taylor v. Taylor, 2018-Ohio-2530, ¶ 5 (10th Dist.), citing Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144 (1989).

2025“When applying the abuse-of-discretion standard of review, appellate courts are not free to merely substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.” Bennett, supra, citing In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137-38 (1991), in turn citing Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 169 (1990).

2023Although a court may have decided a case differently, "[w]hen applying an abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court is not free to merely substitute its judgment for that of the trial court." In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137-138 (1991); See also In re Adoption of J.N.G. 5th Dist.

2026In re C.K., 2019-Ohio-4167 , ¶ 18 (8th Dist.), citing Vannucci v. Schneider, 2018-Ohio-1294, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.).

2026Vannucci v. Schneider, 2018-Ohio-1294, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.).

2025Standard of Appellate Review {¶16} “When a court's judgment is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, an abuse-of-discretion standard is not appropriate.” Medical Mutual of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 2009-Ohio-2496, ¶ 13 , citing, Swartzentruber v. Orrville Grace Brethren Church, 2005-Ohio-4264, ¶ 6 (9th Dist.), and Huntsman v. Aultman Hosp, 2008-Ohio- 2554, ¶ 50 (5th Dist.).

2020Muskingum County, Case No. CT 2019-0029 4 STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW. {¶10} “When a court’s judgment is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, an abuse-of-discretion standard is not appropriate.” Medical Mutual of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181 , 2009-Ohio-2496 , 909 N.E.2d 1237, ¶ 13 (citing, Swartzentruber v. Orrville Grace Brethren Church, 163 Ohio App.3d 96 , 2005-Ohio-4264 , 836 N.E.2d 619 (9th Dist.), ¶ 6; Huntsman v. Aultman Hosp., 5th Dist.

2019See In re C.F. at ¶ 48 (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard to the trial court's findings under R.C. 2151.414). {¶ 22} An abuse of discretion “ ‘implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ ” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983), quoting State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 , 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).

2019See In re C.F. at ¶ 48 (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard to the trial court's findings under R.C. 2151.414). {¶ 22} An abuse of discretion “ ‘implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ ” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983), quoting State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 , 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).

2023Id., quoting Davis at 418. {¶38} We review the juvenile court’s decision to grant legal custody under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

2023Id., quoting Davis at 418 . {¶38} We review the juvenile court’s decision to grant legal custody under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

2025State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 283 (1999). {¶13} We generally apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court's decision to dismiss a petition for postconviction relief without a hearing.

2024“A petition for post-conviction relief is subject to dismissal without a hearing when the record, including the dialogue conducted between the court and the defendant pursuant to Crim.R. 11, indicates that the petitioner is not entitled to relief and that the petitioner failed to submit evidentiary documents containing sufficient operative facts to demonstrate that the guilty plea was coerced or induced by false promises.” State v. Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 36, 38 , 448 N.E.2d 823 (1983); State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 291 , 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999). 6 Case No. 2023-P-0076 {¶16} Courts of appeal

2024According to Reid, R.C. 2703.24 allows notice by publication and, “[i]n this manner, the known heirs, devisees and legatees could have their rights declared and assets distributed, without having to worry about unknown individuals asserting claims after the proceeding in question has been adjudicated and closed.” Appellant’s Brief, p. iv. -6- {¶ 11} “A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for default judgment is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Citation omitted.) Lacy v. State, 2020-Ohio-3089, ¶ 83 (11th Dist.). “ ‘Abuse of discretion’ has been defined as an attitu

2024The complaint provided that the offense was contrary to and in violation of R.C. 2909.07(A)(3) and that it was commonly known as criminal mischief, a misdemeanor of the third degree. {¶ 25} Accordingly, before and after the amendment, Holder was charged with criminal mischief, a misdemeanor of the third degree; the name and identity of the offense charged were not changed. {¶ 26} “ ‘If the amendment does not change the name or identity of the crime charged, then we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review to the trial court’s decision to allow a Crim.R. 7(D) amendment.’ ” Jones, 2015-Oh

2024Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 , 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993). {¶39} We also review the denial of a motion for stay of proceedings under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

2024Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 , 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993). {¶39} We also review the denial of a motion for stay of proceedings under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

2023“If the record does not on its face disprove the petitioner's claim, then the court is required to ‘proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues.’ ” Id., quoting R.C. 2953.21(F). {¶ 22} An abuse of discretion standard applies to decisions granting or denying post-conviction relief, “including the decision whether to afford the petitioner a hearing.” State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446 , 2022-Ohio-3991 , 205 N.E.3d 513, ¶ 38 , citing State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 , 2006-Ohio-6679 , 860 N.E.2d 77 , ¶ 51-52 and 58.

2023“If the record does not on its face disprove the petitioner's claim, then the court is required to ‘proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues.’ ” Id., quoting R.C. 2953.21(F). {¶ 22} An abuse of discretion standard applies to decisions granting or denying post-conviction relief, “including the decision whether to afford the petitioner a hearing.” State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446 , 2022-Ohio-3991 , 205 N.E.3d 513, ¶ 38 , citing State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 , 2006-Ohio-6679 , 860 N.E.2d 77 , ¶ 51-52 and 58.

2014If this first prong is satisfied, the trial court's decision shall be reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124, ¶4 (O'Connor, J., plurality opinion), citing State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 . {¶9} A sentencing court must consider the principles and purposes of sentencing found in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12.

2014If this first prong is satisfied, the trial court's decision shall be reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124, ¶4 (O'Connor, J., plurality opinion), citing State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 . {¶9} A sentencing court must consider the principles and purposes of sentencing found in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12.

2020“The grant or denial of a mistrial rests within the discretion of the trial court and is subject to review on appeal under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id., citing State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 182 , 510 N.E.2d 343 (1987).

2020“The grant or denial of a mistrial rests within the discretion of the trial court and is subject to review on appeal under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id., citing State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 182 , 510 N.E.2d 343 (1987).

2019Hair incorrectly relies on the abuse of discretion standard identified in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 .

2019Hair incorrectly relies on the abuse of discretion standard identified in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 .

2023The court emphasized that it is “exceedingly difficult to apply an abuse-of-discretion standard to Civ.R. 23 determinations where * * * the trial court fails not only to articulate its rationale, but also fails to disclose which of the seven class action prerequisites it found to be lacking with respect to the various alleged claims for relief.” Id. at 71. {¶ 9} As in Hamilton, the trial court here failed to articulate its justification for denying class certification.

2019The Ohio Supreme Court 6 has stated that “the appropriateness of applying the abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing class action determinations is grounded * * * in the trial court’s special expertise and familiarity with case-management problems and its inherent power to manage its own docket.” Id., citing Marks, supra, at 201 . {¶17} However, “the trial court’s discretion in deciding whether to certify a class action * * * must be exercised within the framework of Civ.R. 23.

2025PAGE 4 OF 11 Case No. 2024-T-0073 {¶10} “A domestic relations court’s division of property in a divorce proceeding is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Nelson v. Nelson, 2022-Ohio-658, ¶ 41 (11th Dist.); Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (1981), paragraph two of the syllabus (“[a] Court of Common Pleas has broad discretion to determine what property division is equitable in a divorce proceeding”).

2005Id. {¶ 12} Under an abuse of discretion standard, the trial court did not err when it awarded all of the equity in the marital real estate to Karen.

2026In Orr v. Brantley, 2024- Ohio-3245, ¶ 15 (11th Dist.), the Eleventh District applied the abuse of discretion standard to the trial court’s decision to overrule a motion for continuance, as “ ‘[t]he grant or denial of a continuance is a matter that is entrusted to the broad, sound discretion of the trial judge.’ ” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67 (1981). {¶54} “An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises its judgment ‘in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has discretionary authority.’ ” Conkle at ¶ 23 , quoting Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Oh

2026(Id., p. 20-21.) {¶74} “When addressing the request for continuance of a trial, appellate courts employ an abuse of discretion standard.” Matter of E.T., 2023-Ohio-444, ¶ 85 (7th Dist.), citing State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981), syllabus.

2024“A defendant who seeks to withdraw a plea of guilty after the imposition of sentence has the burden of establishing the existence of manifest injustice.” Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶12} An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion to withdraw a plea under an abuse of discretion standard.

2020State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph one of the syllabus. * * * [B]ecause a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, we review a trial court’s judgment on such a motion under an abuse of discretion standard.

2022Wayne No. 07CA0073, 2008-Ohio-4997, ¶ 13 , citing Rohde v. Farmer, 23 Ohio St.2d 82 (1970), paragraphs one and two 35 of the syllabus. “[If] the basis of the motion involves a question of law, the de novo standard of review applies, and when the basis of the motion involves the determination of an issue left to the trial court’s discretion, the abuse of discretion standard applies.” Designers Choice, Inc., 2020- Ohio-4617, at ¶ 10, quoting Dragway 42, L.L.C. v. Kokosing Constr.

2021Wayne No. 07CA0073, 2008-Ohio-4997, ¶ 13 , citing Rohde v. Farmer, 23 Ohio St.2d 82 (1970), paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. “[If] the basis of the motion involves a question of law, the de novo standard of review applies, and when the basis of the motion involves the determination of an issue left to the trial court's discretion, the abuse of discretion standard applies.” Dragway 42, L.L.C. v. Kokosing Constr.

2007Strack v. Pelton (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 172 , 174 . {¶ 16} An appellate court reviews a trial court's denial of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion under an abuse of discretion standard.

2007Strack v. Pelton (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 172 , 174 . {¶ 17} An appellate court reviews a trial court's denial of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion under an abuse of discretion standard.

2019An abuse of discretion standard “‘connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’” Id., quoting Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

2013No. 11AP-577, 2012-Ohio-718 , ¶ 13 ("Under the abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court may not merely substitute its judgment for that of the trial court."), citing Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128, 131 (1989).

2026“We must be mindful that when applying the abuse of discretion standard, ‘we should not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.’” T.C. v. R.B.C., 2025-Ohio-1544, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.), quoting Mills v. Mills, 2025-Ohio-452, ¶ 28 (8th Dist.), citing Martin v. Martin, 18 Ohio St.3d 292 (1985).

2025We must be mindful that when applying the abuse- of-discretion standard “we should not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.” Mills v. Mills, 2025-Ohio-452, ¶ 28 (8th Dist.), citing Martin v. Martin, 18 Ohio St.3d 292, 295 (1985).