14 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bartchy v. State Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2023Buckeye Relief at ¶ 17 (“With respect to the purely legal inquiry, while the reviewing [common pleas] court must defer to the agency’s findings of facts, it ‘must construe the law on its own.’”), quoting Bartchy at ¶ 38. 2020In order to be reliable, there must be a reasonable probability that the evidence is true. (2) “Probative” evidence is evidence that tends to prove the issue in question; it must be relevant in determining the issue. (3) “Substantial” evidence is evidence with some weight; it must have importance and value.’ ” Bartchy v. State Bd. of Edn., 120 Ohio St.3d 205 , 2008-Ohio-4826 , 897 N.E.2d 1096, ¶ 39 , quoting Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570, 571 , 589 N.E.2d 1303 (1992). {¶ 58} In Bartchy, the court stated that in reviewing agency decisions under Chapter 119, com | 1 | 5 |
University of Cincinnati v. Conradgreen2 sentences2022Relations Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 466, 470 , 613 N.E.2d 591 (1993). “[A]n agency’s findings of fact are presumed to be correct and must be deferred to by a reviewing court unless that court determines that the agency’s findings are internally inconsistent, impeached by evidence of a prior inconsistent statement, rest upon improper inferences, or are otherwise unsupportable.” Id. at 471; Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108, 111 , 407 N.E.2d 1265 (1980) (“[w]here the court, in its appraisal of the evidence, determines that there exist legally significant reasons for discrediting certain 2022Relations Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 466, 470 , 613 N.E.2d 591 (1993). “[A]n agency’s findings of fact are presumed to be correct and must be deferred to by a reviewing court unless that court determines that the agency’s findings are internally inconsistent, impeached by evidence of a prior inconsistent statement, rest upon improper inferences, or are otherwise unsupportable.” Id. at 471; Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108, 111 , 407 N.E.2d 1265 (1980) (“[w]here the court, in its appraisal of the evidence, determines that there exist legally significant reasons for discrediting certain | 1 | 3 |
Ickes v. Lawrence Townshipgreen1 sentence2025They acknowledge that the letter would have been more accurate if it said that Kemner Road ends before reaching the Friesner property, however, the focus and intent of the letters was to solicit the assistance of the tenants living in the Friesner farmhouse—not to describe Kemner Road. {¶ 73} In Ickes, 2005-Ohio-3195, at ¶ 16 (5th Dist.), the Fifth District recognized that the issue of implied acceptance necessary to prove common-law dedication “[i]s not a purely legal analysis,” but rather one requiring the facts to be weighed to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate imp | 1 | 1 |
VFW Post 8586 v. Ohio Liquor Control Commissiongreen1 sentence2022Relations Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 466, 470 , 613 N.E.2d 591 (1993). “[A]n agency’s findings of fact are presumed to be correct and must be deferred to by a reviewing court unless that court determines that the agency’s findings are internally inconsistent, impeached by evidence of a prior inconsistent statement, rest upon improper inferences, or are otherwise unsupportable.” Id. at 471; Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108, 111 , 407 N.E.2d 1265 (1980) (“[w]here the court, in its appraisal of the evidence, determines that there exist legally significant reasons for discrediting certain | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Commission
green
2 sentences2020In order to be reliable, there must be a reasonable probability that the evidence is true. (2) “Probative” evidence is evidence that tends to prove the issue in question; it must be relevant in determining the issue. (3) “Substantial” evidence is evidence with some weight; it must have importance and value.’ ” Bartchy v. State Bd. of Edn., 120 Ohio St.3d 205 , 2008-Ohio-4826 , 897 N.E.2d 1096, ¶ 39 , quoting Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570, 571 , 589 N.E.2d 1303 (1992). {¶ 58} In Bartchy, the court stated that in reviewing agency decisions under Chapter 119, com 2020In order to be reliable, there must be a reasonable probability that the evidence is true. (2) “Probative” evidence is evidence that tends to prove the issue in question; it must be relevant in determining the issue. (3) “Substantial” evidence is evidence with some weight; it must have importance and value.’ ” Bartchy v. State Bd. of Edn., 120 Ohio St.3d 205 , 2008-Ohio-4826 , 897 N.E.2d 1096, ¶ 39 , quoting Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570, 571 , 589 N.E.2d 1303 (1992). {¶ 58} In Bartchy, the court stated that in reviewing agency decisions under Chapter 119, com | 3 | 2012–2020 |
Moran v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, Division of Real Estate
green
2 sentences2003"This standard calls for two inquiries: a hybrid factual/legal inquiry, in which the agency's findings of fact are presumed correct, and a purely legal inquiry, in which questions of law are reviewed de novo." Moran v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, Division of Real Estate (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 494 , 497 . {¶ 43} Importantly, at this stage of an R.C. 119.12 appeal, our review is much more limited than the review conducted by the trial court. 2002Pursuant to R.C. 119.12, a common pleas court may affirm an administrative agency’s determination if it is “supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law.” “This standard calls for two inquiries: a hybrid factual/legal inquiry, in which the agency’s findings of fact are presumed correct, and a purely legal inquiry, in which questions of law are reviewed de novo.” Moran v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, Div. of Real Estate (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 494, 497 , 672 N.E.2d 699 . | 3 | 2001–2003 |
Ohio Historical Society v. State Employment Relations Board
green
2 sentences2022Relations Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 466, 470 , 613 N.E.2d 591 (1993). “[A]n agency’s findings of fact are presumed to be correct and must be deferred to by a reviewing court unless that court determines that the agency’s findings are internally inconsistent, impeached by evidence of a prior inconsistent statement, rest upon improper inferences, or are otherwise unsupportable.” Id. at 471; Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108, 111 , 407 N.E.2d 1265 (1980) (“[w]here the court, in its appraisal of the evidence, determines that there exist legally significant reasons for discrediting certain 1999Id. | 2 | 1999–2022 |
State ex rel. Clark v. Marshall
green
2 sentences1993In Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 108 , 17 O.O.3d 65 , 407 N.E.2d 1265 , and Andrews v. Bd. of Liquor Control (1955), 164 Ohio St. 275 , 58 O.O. 51 , 131 N.E.2d 390 , this court described the hybrid factual/legal inquiry required by R.C. 119.12. 1993In Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 108 , 17 O.O.3d 65 , 407 N.E.2d 1265 , and Andrews v. Bd. of Liquor Control (1955), 164 Ohio St. 275 , 58 O.O. 51 , 131 N.E.2d 390 , this court described the hybrid factual/legal inquiry required by R.C. 119.12. | 2 | 1993–1993 |
Capital Care Network of Toledo v. Dept. of Health (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022“The court may affirm the order of the agency complained of in the appeal if it finds, upon consideration of the entire record and any additional evidence the court has admitted, that the order is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law.” R.C. 119.12(M); Capital Care Network of Toledo v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 153 Ohio St.3d 362 , 2018-Ohio-440 , 106 N.E.3d 1209, ¶ 24 . {¶19} “This standard requires two inquiries: a hybrid factual/legal inquiry and a purely legal inquiry.” Ohio Historical Soc. v. State Emp. 2022“The court may affirm the order of the agency complained of in the appeal if it finds, upon consideration of the entire record and any additional evidence the court has admitted, that the order is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law.” R.C. 119.12(M); Capital Care Network of Toledo v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 153 Ohio St.3d 362 , 2018-Ohio-440 , 106 N.E.3d 1209, ¶ 24 . {¶19} “This standard requires two inquiries: a hybrid factual/legal inquiry and a purely legal inquiry.” Ohio Historical Soc. v. State Emp. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.