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.
12 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Post v. Leopardigreen1 sentence2024“Objections based on evidence of record must be supported by a transcript or, if a transcript is not available, by an affidavit of that evidence.” Post v. Leopardi, 2020-Ohio-2890, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.), citing Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iv). {¶11} With these points in mind, when a petition for a CSPO, filed pursuant to R.C. 2903.214, is tried to the magistrate and a party wishes to challenge the facts and evidence upon which the magistrate bases its decision, he or she must first provide the trial court with a transcript or affidavit. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pettet v. Pettet
green
2 sentences2023Otherwise his already "uphill" burden of demonstrating error becomes an almost insurmountable "mountain." Pettet v. Pettet, 55 Ohio App.3d 128, 130 , 562 N.E.2d 929 (5th Dist.1988). {¶ 21} In this case, Elkins testified she was in imminent fear or harm over the threatening texts Denczak sent to her. 2020Id. {¶56} The message is clear: If a party wishes to challenge the judgment as being against the manifest weight of the evidence, he or she had best secure separate 16 findings of fact and conclusions of law. | 6 | 1997–2023 |
McClead v. McClead, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2007)
green
2 sentences2011Otherwise his already ‘uphill’ burden of demonstrating error becomes an almost insurmountable ‘mountain.’” See, also, Bugg; McClead v. McClead at ¶10, Washington App. No. 06CA67, 2007-Ohio-4624 at ¶25 . {¶24} In the case at bar, there is some evidence to support the trial court’s judgment. 2011Otherwise his already ‘uphill’ burden of demonstrating error becomes an almost insurmountable ‘mountain.’” See, also, Bugg; McClead v. McClead, Washington App. No. 06CA67, 2007-Ohio-4624 . {¶ 12} In the case at bar, the trial court did not enter detailed factual findings or legal conclusions. | 3 | 2008–2011 |
Sheridan v. Hagglund
green
1 sentence2015Otherwise, his already “uphill” burden of demonstrating error becomes an almost insurmountable “mountain.” ’ ” Id. quoting Pettet v. Pettet, 55 Ohio App.3d 128, 130 , 562 N.E.2d 929 (5th Dist.1988). {¶23} Because Thacker did not request findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Civ.R. 52, the trial court did not need to engage in a factor-by-factor analysis of the R.C. 3109.04 best-interest standards. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2008Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279 , syllabus. {¶ 16} "If a party wishes to challenge the * * * judgment as being against the manifest weight of the evidence he had best secure separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State ex rel. Mallory v. Public Employees Retirement Board
green
1 sentence2007Retirement Bd. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 235, 239 , 694 N.E.2d 1356 (Public Employees Retirement Board’s denial of service credit to a member of the Public Employees Retirement System is reviewable in mandamus). {¶ 25} Two important competing concerns are implicated when a party wishes to challenge a particular state actor’s decision that expressly is not appealable. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re M.W., Unpublished Decision (2-4-2004)
neutral
1 sentence2004See R.C. 2151.412 (E)(2) That section provides: "All parties and the guardian ad litem shall have seven days from the date the notice [of proposed changes to the case plan] is sent to object to and request a hearing on the proposed changes." Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.