Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reed v. Key-Chrysler Plymouthgreen2 sentences1998See, also, Reed v. Key-Chrysler Plymouth (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 437 , 708 N.E.2d 1021 (outlining necessity of distinguishing between insufficiency and weight of evidence in the civil context based, in part, on Thompkins, supra). 1. 1987 Transfer At the time of the 1987 transfer, a conveyance was deemed fraudulent (1) as to creditors if it was made without fair consideration and rendered the conveyor insolvent; (2) as to present and future creditors during the continuance of a business or transaction if it was made without fair consideration and the conveyor was or was about to be engaged in s 1998See, also, Reed v. Key-Chrysler Plymouth (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 437 , 708 N.E.2d 1021 (outlining necessity of distinguishing between insufficiency and weight of evidence in the civil context based, in part, on Thompkins, supra). 1. 1987 Transfer At the time of the 1987 transfer, a conveyance was deemed fraudulent (1) as to creditors if it was made without fair consideration and rendered the conveyor insolvent; (2) as to present and future creditors during the continuance of a business or transaction if it was made without fair consideration and the conveyor was or was about to be engaged in s | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompkinsred2 sentences1998In reviewing whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of indicia of fraud to raise a presumption of fraud and shift the burden to defendants to rebut that presumption, this court must review that evidence and determine whether, if believed, it could have convinced a reasonable fact finder that those indicia had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. 3 See, e.g., State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 , paragraph two of the syllabus (articulating an insufficiency test in the criminal context); State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541, 5 1998In reviewing whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of indicia of fraud to raise a presumption of fraud and shift the burden to defendants to rebut that presumption, this court must review that evidence and determine whether, if believed, it could have convinced a reasonable fact finder that those indicia had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. 3 See, e.g., State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 , paragraph two of the syllabus (articulating an insufficiency test in the criminal context); State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541, 5 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences2002The trial court erred in overruling defendant/appellant’s motion for acquittal when a ‘lawful arrest’ is a requisite element of the charge of resisting arrest and where the arrest was unlawful as a matter of law.” {¶ 11} Swiecicki maintains that the evidence presented by the city does not support his convictions of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. *80 {¶ 12} In State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 , 20 OBR 215, 485 N.E.2d 717 , the court summarized the standard of review for an insufficiency claim: {¶ 13} “[T]he test is whether after viewing the probative evidence and infere 2002The trial court erred in overruling defendant/appellant’s motion for acquittal when a ‘lawful arrest’ is a requisite element of the charge of resisting arrest and where the arrest was unlawful as a matter of law.” {¶ 11} Swiecicki maintains that the evidence presented by the city does not support his convictions of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. *80 {¶ 12} In State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 , 20 OBR 215, 485 N.E.2d 717 , the court summarized the standard of review for an insufficiency claim: {¶ 13} “[T]he test is whether after viewing the probative evidence and infere | 10 | 2001–2002 |
State v. Sadeghi
green
1 sentence2018No. 14AP0051, 2016-Ohio-744 , 2016 WL 769109 , ¶ 22 (consider the judicially noticed evidence in evaluating an insufficiency claim). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2018This distinction "recognizes that the state may rely upon the trial court's evidentiary rulings in deciding how to present its case." State v. Brewer , 121 Ohio St.3d 202 , 2009-Ohio-593 , 903 N.E.2d 284 , ¶ 19. 4 {¶ 27} The case at bar is distinguishable from any case where the device was not described by the officer and where the trial court did not take judicial notice. 2018This distinction "recognizes that the state may rely upon the trial court's evidentiary rulings in deciding how to present its case." State v. Brewer , 121 Ohio St.3d 202 , 2009-Ohio-593 , 903 N.E.2d 284 , ¶ 19. 4 {¶ 27} The case at bar is distinguishable from any case where the device was not described by the officer and where the trial court did not take judicial notice. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Baker v. State
green
1 sentence2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Jenks
red
2 sentences1998In reviewing whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of indicia of fraud to raise a presumption of fraud and shift the burden to defendants to rebut that presumption, this court must review that evidence and determine whether, if believed, it could have convinced a reasonable fact finder that those indicia had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. 3 See, e.g., State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 , paragraph two of the syllabus (articulating an insufficiency test in the criminal context); State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541, 5 1998In reviewing whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of indicia of fraud to raise a presumption of fraud and shift the burden to defendants to rebut that presumption, this court must review that evidence and determine whether, if believed, it could have convinced a reasonable fact finder that those indicia had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. 3 See, e.g., State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 , paragraph two of the syllabus (articulating an insufficiency test in the criminal context); State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541, 5 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.