civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard in Ohio

2015This case and others cite to a civil-manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, but the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard set forth in State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), applies equally to civil and criminal cases.

2015This case and others cite to a civil-manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, but the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard set forth in State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), applies equally to civil and criminal cases.

2010Chapter 2950 are civil in nature, a trial court’s determination in a sex-offender-classification hearing must be reviewed under a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard * * In State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7 , 2008-Ohio-4824 , 896 N.E.2d 110 , this court held that the *453 2003 amendments (Am.Sub.S.B.

2010Chapter 2950 are civil in nature, a trial court’s determination in a sex-offender-classification hearing must be reviewed under a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard * * In State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7 , 2008-Ohio-4824 , 896 N.E.2d 110 , this court held that the *453 2003 amendments (Am.Sub.S.B.

2011We do not agree. {¶9} In Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko, 115 Ohio St.3d 291 , 2007-Ohio-4918 , at ¶3, the Ohio Supreme Court set forth the civil standard of review for manifest weight challenges: “When applying a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court of appeals should affirm a trial court when the trial court’s decision is supported by some competent, credible evidence.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.) {¶10} The record indicates that on September 26, 2007, Hendy executed a cognovit promissory note, secured by real estate, in favor of Ameribank.

2009Artistic and Parks assert that there is no evidence given to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the pool should be replaced. {¶ 13} "When applying a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court of appeals should affirm a trial court when the trial court's decision `is supported by some competent, credible evidence.'" Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko (2007), 115 Ohio St.3d 291 , 2007-Ohio-4918 , at ¶ 3 , quoting State v. Wilson , 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , at ¶ 32 . {¶ 14} We initially note that Artistic and Parks failed to object to the testimony and opinions of Bre

2017The "clear-and-convincing standard requires a higher degree of proof than a 'preponderance of the evidence,' but less than 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.' " Id ., quoting State v. Ingram , 82 Ohio App.3d 341 , 346, 612 N.E.2d 454 (2d Dist.1992). {¶ 10} Because a sex offender classification under Megan's Law is considered civil in nature, we review sexual offender classification determinations under a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard.

2017The "clear-and-convincing standard requires a higher degree of proof than a 'preponderance of the evidence,' but less than 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.' " Id ., quoting State v. Ingram , 82 Ohio App.3d 341 , 346, 612 N.E.2d 454 (2d Dist.1992). {¶ 10} Because a sex offender classification under Megan's Law is considered civil in nature, we review sexual offender classification determinations under a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard.

2011Moreover, appellate courts applying the civil-manifest-weight-of-the- evidence standard should presume that the trial court’s factual findings are correct because it had the opportunity “‘to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.’” Wilson at ¶24 , quoting Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 .

2009Also, as we explained in State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , under the civil manifest-weight-of- the-evidence standard, “a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct. * * * This presumption arises because the trial judge had an opportunity ‘to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO proffered testimony.’ ” Id. at ¶ 24, quoting Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80

2008State v. Grimes (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 86 , 89 , 757 N.E.2d 413 . {¶ 36} In reviewing a sexual predator classification, this court's role is to determine whether the weight of the evidence supports the trial court's decision. "[A] trial court's determination in a sex-offender-classification hearing must be reviewed under a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and may not be disturbed when the judge's findings are supported by some competent credible evidence." State v. Wilson , 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , syllabus; see also, State v. Forbes , Cuyahoga App. No. 87473, 2006-

2007State v. Grimes (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 86 , 89 , 757 N.E.2d 413 . {¶ 15} In reviewing a sexual predator classification, this court's role is to determine whether the weight of the evidence supports the trial court's decision. "[A] trial court's determination in a sex-offender-classification hearing must be viewed under the civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and may not be disturbed when the judge's findings are supported by some competent, credible evidence." State v. Wilson , 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , syllabus; see, also, State v. Forbes , Cuyahoga App. No. 87473, 200

2008State v. Grimes (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 86 , 89 , 757 N.E.2d 413 . {¶ 36} In reviewing a sexual predator classification, this court's role is to determine whether the weight of the evidence supports the trial court's decision. "[A] trial court's determination in a sex-offender-classification hearing must be reviewed under a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and may not be disturbed when the judge's findings are supported by some competent credible evidence." State v. Wilson , 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , syllabus; see also, State v. Forbes , Cuyahoga App. No. 87473, 2006-

2008State v. Grimes (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 86 , 89 , 757 N.E.2d 413 . {¶ 36} In reviewing a sexual predator classification, this court's role is to determine whether the weight of the evidence supports the trial court's decision. "[A] trial court's determination in a sex-offender-classification hearing must be reviewed under a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and may not be disturbed when the judge's findings are supported by some competent credible evidence." State v. Wilson , 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , syllabus; see also, State v. Forbes , Cuyahoga App. No. 87473, 2006-

2008State v. Grimes (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 86 , 89 , 757 N.E.2d 413 . {¶ 36} In reviewing a sexual predator classification, this court's role is to determine whether the weight of the evidence supports the trial court's decision. "[A] trial court's determination in a sex-offender-classification hearing must be reviewed under a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and may not be disturbed when the judge's findings are supported by some competent credible evidence." State v. Wilson , 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , syllabus; see also, State v. Forbes , Cuyahoga App. No. 87473, 2006-

2007State v. Grimes (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 86 , 89 , 757 N.E.2d 413 . {¶ 15} In reviewing a sexual predator classification, this court's role is to determine whether the weight of the evidence supports the trial court's decision. "[A] trial court's determination in a sex-offender-classification hearing must be viewed under the civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and may not be disturbed when the judge's findings are supported by some competent, credible evidence." State v. Wilson , 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , syllabus; see, also, State v. Forbes , Cuyahoga App. No. 87473, 200

2008Chapter 2950 are civil in nature, a trial court's determination in a sex-offender-classification hearing must be reviewed under a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and may not be disturbed when the judge's findings are supported by some competent, credible evidence." Id., citing Reeves at ¶ 13 , citing State v. Wilson , 113 Ohio St. 3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 .

2008Chapter 2950 are civil in nature, a trial court's determination in a sex-offender-classification hearing must be reviewed under a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and may not be disturbed when the judge's findings are supported by some competent, credible evidence." Id., citing Reeves at ¶ 13 . {¶ 157} Proof by clear and convincing evidence that the offender has been convicted of a sexually oriented offense and that the offender is likely to engage in one or more future sexually oriented offenses is required for an offender to be designated a sexual predator.

2021Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 , 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978), syllabus, to explain the civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard (“Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence.”).

2021Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 , 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978), syllabus, to explain the civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard (“Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence.”).

2015It does not mean clear and unequivocal.” State v. Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d 158, 165 , 743 N.E.2d 881 (2001), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 , 477, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). {¶5} This court reviews sexual offender classification determinations under a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard because a sex offender classification under Megan’s Law is considered civil in nature.

2015It does not mean clear and unequivocal.” State v. Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d 158, 165 , 743 N.E.2d 881 (2001), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 , 477, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). {¶5} This court reviews sexual offender classification determinations under a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard because a sex offender classification under Megan’s Law is considered civil in nature.

2011The General Assembly's legislative finding that sex-offender-registration laws are necessary to protect the public because sex offenders pose a present danger—not because additional punishment should be inflicted on them—deserves deference. {¶ 48} Further, this court has very recently determined that S.B. 10 is a civil, remedial law, explaining in State v. Clayborn, 125 Ohio St.3d 450 , 2010-Ohio-2123 , 928 N.E.2d 1093 , that "sex-offender-classification proceedings are civil in nature and require a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard." Id. at ¶ 11.

2011The General Assembly's legislative finding that sex-offender-registration laws are necessary to protect the public because sex offenders pose a present danger—not because additional punishment should be inflicted on them—deserves deference. {¶ 48} Further, this court has very recently determined that S.B. 10 is a civil, remedial law, explaining in State v. Clayborn, 125 Ohio St.3d 450 , 2010-Ohio-2123 , 928 N.E.2d 1093 , that "sex-offender-classification proceedings are civil in nature and require a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard." Id. at ¶ 11.

2020“The term ‘abuse of discretion’ implies that the [trial ]court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219 . -9- Case No. 5-20-03 {¶17} As long as the trial court’s judgment is supported by competent, credible evidence, it must be affirmed under the civil-manifest-weight-of-the- evidence standard.

2015Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 .

2015Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 .

2011Sullivan v. Curry, Montgomery App. No. 23293, 2010-Ohio-5041 , ¶42. {¶ 37} “A claim for common-law fraud requires proof of the following elements: (1) a representation or, where there is a duty to disclose, concealment of a fact, (2) which is material to the transaction at hand, (3) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity, or with such utter disregard and recklessness as to whether it is true or false that knowledge may be inferred, (4) with the intent of misleading another into relying upon it, (5) justifiable reliance upon the representation or concealment, and (6) a resulting injury pro

2009No. 2008-L-055, 2008-Ohio-4415 , at ¶¶ 30-35 (citations omitted). {¶ 17} When reviewing the juvenile court's findings, this court applies the civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard.

2008Of course, "[a] finding of an error in law is a legitimate ground for reversal, but a difference of opinion on credibility or witnesses and evidence is not." Id. at ¶ 24, quoting Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77 , 81 . {¶ 9} In this case, the juvenile court classified W.H. as a habitual sex offender based on his prior adjudication on January 22, 2004, as a delinquent child by reason of sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.06 . {¶ 10} Pursuant to the law in effect at the time of the juvenile's classification hearing, a "habitual sex offender" was defined, in r

2008No. 2006-T-0123, 2007-Ohio-6932 , ¶ 54 , citing State v. Reeves , 11th Dist.

2008Of course, "[a] finding of an error in law is a legitimate ground for reversal, but a difference of opinion on credibility or witnesses and evidence is not." Id. at ¶ 24, quoting Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77 , 81 . {¶ 9} In this case, the juvenile court classified W.H. as a habitual sex offender based on his prior adjudication on January 22, 2004, as a delinquent child by reason of sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.06 . {¶ 10} Pursuant to the law in effect at the time of the juvenile's classification hearing, a "habitual sex offender" was defined, in r

2008R.C. 2950.09 (B)(3); State v. Shields , Cuyahoga App. No. 85998, 2006-Ohio-1536 . {¶ 64} In reviewing a sexual predator classification, this court's role is to determine whether the weight of the evidence supports the trial court's decision. "[A] trial court's determination in a sex-offender-classification hearing must be viewed under the civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and may not be disturbed when the judge's findings are supported by some competent, credible evidence." State v. Wilson , 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , syllabus. {¶ 65} In this case, Knight argues that th

2007No. 02AP-925, 2003-Ohio-2192 , at ¶ 14, citing State v. Hardie (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 1 , 5 . {¶ 20} The Supreme Court of Ohio, in State v. Wilson , 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , at ¶ 41 , declared that since classification proceedings for sex offenders under R.C. 2950 are civil in nature, "a trial court's determination in a sex-offender-classification hearing must be reviewed under a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and may not be disturbed when the trial judge's findings are supported by competent, credible evidence." Under this standard, we must look at the trial cour

2007If competent, credible evidence exists to support the trial court’s decision, it must be affirmed. {¶ 61} Unfortunately, the Ohio Supreme Court failed to address or even consider the Sixth District’s view of the “distinction between burden of proof and burden of persuasion” that “remains regardless of the character of the proceedings.” Davis, 2005-Ohio-2883 , 2005 WL 1383975 , at ¶ 25.