evidence introduced hearing (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

evidence introduced hearing in Ohio

15 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2026 4 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Thompkinsred
ohio · 1997 · cited in 4 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2006–2007
2 sentences

2007See, also, State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 387 . {¶ 27} The role of the appellate court is to engage in a limited weighing of the evidence introduced at the hearing in order to determine whether the state appropriately carried its burden of persuasion.

2007See, also, State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 387 . {¶ 9} The role of the appellate court is to engage in a limited weighing of the evidence introduced at the hearing in order to determine whether the state appropriately carried its burden of persuasion.

44
Berish v. Berishgreen
ohio · 1982 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025Gilleo v. Gilleo, 2010-Ohio-5191, ¶ 21 , citing Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318, 319 (1982). {¶56} In the instant case, the evidence introduced at the hearing established that Patrick owns a Cadillac Escalade, which he purchased in July of 2020.

11
Auth v. Indus. Physical Capability Servs., Inc.green
ohioctapp · 2017 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See id.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Bates & Springer, Inc. v. Stallworth green
ohioctapp · 1978
2 sentences

2026In making its argument that the trial court could consider only the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing, Talismanic relies on the following passage from Bates & Springer, Inc. v. Stallworth, 56 Ohio App.2d 223 (8th Dist. 1978): “If the trial court exercises its discretion and grants a hearing on the motion, any appeal taken from the court’s action thereon is not decided upon the material submitted with the motion but upon whether the evidence introduced at the hearing satisfies the three requirements of GTE.” Id. at 228 .

2026In making its argument that the trial court could consider only the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing, Talismanic relies on the following passage from Bates & Springer, Inc. v. Stallworth, 56 Ohio App.2d 223 (8th Dist. 1978): “If the trial court exercises its discretion and grants a hearing on the motion, any appeal taken from the court’s action thereon is not decided upon the material submitted with the motion but upon whether the evidence introduced at the hearing satisfies the three requirements of GTE.” Id. at 228 .

41984–2026
C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. green
ohio · 1978
2 sentences

2009Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co . (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279 . {¶ 13} The evidence introduced at the hearing supports the trial court's determination that Appellant was in contempt for violating the May 30, 2007, entry.

2008Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279 . {¶ 20} The evidence introduced at hearing indicates Appellee sought and was granted an ex parte domestic violence civil protection order during the time she refused to return the children.

22008–2009
Gilleo v. Gilleo green
ohioctapp · 2010
1 sentence

2025Gilleo v. Gilleo, 2010-Ohio-5191, ¶ 21 , citing Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318, 319 (1982). {¶56} In the instant case, the evidence introduced at the hearing established that Patrick owns a Cadillac Escalade, which he purchased in July of 2020.

12025–2025
State ex rel. Cable News Network, Inc. v. Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local Schools (Slip Opinion) green
ohio · 2020
1 sentence

2022Id. {¶26} In this case, the evidence introduced at the hearing showed that the entire security deposit was lawfully withheld and could be lawfully applied to Clark's past due rent.

12022–2022
Poss v. Morris, Unpublished Decision (3-24-2006) green
ohioctapp · 2006
1 sentence

2006Accordingly, Appellant's first assignment of error is without merit. {¶ 32} Appellant's second assignment of error states: {¶ 33} "The decision of the magistrate, approved by the trial court, holding the Appellant in contempt was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence introduced at the hearing before the magistrate and, therefore, was an abuse of discretion." {¶ 34} Civil contempt has been defined as "that which exists in failing to do something ordered to be done by the court in a civil action for the benefit of the opposing party." Poss v. Morris, Ashtabula App. No. 2004-A-0093, 200

12006–2006
Marden v. Marden green
ohioctapp · 1996
2 sentences

2006Accordingly, Appellant's first assignment of error is without merit. {¶ 32} Appellant's second assignment of error states: {¶ 33} "The decision of the magistrate, approved by the trial court, holding the Appellant in contempt was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence introduced at the hearing before the magistrate and, therefore, was an abuse of discretion." {¶ 34} Civil contempt has been defined as "that which exists in failing to do something ordered to be done by the court in a civil action for the benefit of the opposing party." Poss v. Morris, Ashtabula App. No. 2004-A-0093, 200

2006Accordingly, Appellant's first assignment of error is without merit. {¶ 32} Appellant's second assignment of error states: {¶ 33} "The decision of the magistrate, approved by the trial court, holding the Appellant in contempt was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence introduced at the hearing before the magistrate and, therefore, was an abuse of discretion." {¶ 34} Civil contempt has been defined as "that which exists in failing to do something ordered to be done by the court in a civil action for the benefit of the opposing party." Poss v. Morris, Ashtabula App. No. 2004-A-0093, 200

12006–2006
State ex rel. Hayburn v. Kiefer neutral
ohio · 1993
2 sentences

1996Hayburn v. Kiefer (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 132, 134 , 624 N.E.2d 699, 701 . {¶ 9} The evidence introduced at the hearing indicates that Hawkins directed the actions of others when he was a patrolman, deputy sheriff, and security supervisor.

1996Hayburn v. Kiefer (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 132, 134 , 624 N.E.2d 699, 701 . {¶ 9} The evidence introduced at the hearing indicates that Hawkins directed the actions of others when he was a patrolman, deputy sheriff, and security supervisor.

11996–1996

Where else courts name it

GA 34 (1893–2012) TX 33 (1919–2023) CA 23 (1911–2023) IL 19 (1929–2023) OH 15 (1984–2026) NY 12 (1979–2023) LA 10 (1981–2014) WA 8 (1906–2018) FL 8 (1955–2023) NC 8 (1963–2012) PA 8 (1958–2023) TN 7 (1969–2016) NE 6 (1895–2020) AL 5 (1867–2003) OK 5 (1927–1992) IA 4 (1951–2021) NM 4 (1999–2013) MI 4 (2016–2024) CO 4 (1933–2018) MA 4 (1917–2018) MO 3 (1907–1984) IN 3 (1921–1993) VI 3 (2014–2016) DE 2 (2023–2025) SD 2 (1980–1980) NJ 2 (1988–1991) AZ 2 (1973–2015) VT 2 (1976–2025) KS 2 (1904–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check