should consider several factors in Ohio

2026In evaluating a motion for a continuance, a court should consider several factors, including “the length of the delay requested; whether other continuances have been requested and received; the inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel and the court; whether the requested delay is for legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived; whether the defendant contributed to the circumstance which gives rise to the request for a continuance; and other relevant factors, depending on the unique facts of each case.” Id. at 12 67-68, citing United States v. Burton, 5

2025In evaluating a motion for a continuance, a court should consider several factors, including “the length of the delay requested; whether other continuances have been requested and received; the inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel and the court; whether the -5- requested delay is for legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived; whether the defendant contributed to the circumstance which gives rise to the request for a continuance; and other relevant factors, depending on the unique facts of each case.” Id. at 67-68 , citing United States v. Burton,

2026In evaluating a motion for a continuance, a court should consider several factors, including “the length of the delay requested; whether other continuances have been requested and received; the inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel and the court; whether the requested delay is for legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived; whether the defendant contributed to the circumstance which gives rise to the request for a continuance; and other relevant factors, depending on the unique facts of each case.” Id. at 12 67-68, citing United States v. Burton, 5

2025In evaluating a motion for a continuance, a court should consider several factors, including “the length of the delay requested; whether other continuances have been requested and received; the inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel and the court; whether the -5- requested delay is for legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived; whether the defendant contributed to the circumstance which gives rise to the request for a continuance; and other relevant factors, depending on the unique facts of each case.” Id. at 67-68 , citing United States v. Burton,

2004In determining the reliability of the testimony, the court should consider several factors: "(1) whether the theory or technique has been tested, (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review, (3) whether there is a known or potential rate of error, and (4) whether the methodology has gained general acceptance." Id. {¶ 74} Furthermore, the weight to be given a witness' testimony is an issue of credibility.

2004Furthermore, in determining the reliability, the court should consider several factors: "(1) whether the theory or technique has been tested, (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review, (3) whether there is a known or potential rate of error, and (4) whether the methodology has gained general acceptance." Id. {¶ 33} In the underlying case, Cooper offered Dr. Randolph's testimony to support the premise that Darden's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was a peripheral neuropathy caused by her alcohol abuse.

2022Harmon v. Baldwin, 107 Ohio St.3d 232 , 2005-Ohio-6264 , ¶ 21.

2016A trial court's decision regarding a name change will not be reversed unless there is "insufficient evidence as a matter of law that a name change is in the best interest of the child." Id. {¶ 8} The Ohio supreme Court has determined that in making a name-change decision, a court should consider several factors when determining the best interests of that child.

2016Bobo v. Jewell, 38 Ohio St.3d 330 (1988).

2013Slagle v. Bagley, 457 F.3d 501 (6th Cir.2006); and State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2008-Ohio-2 , 880 N.E.2d 31 . {¶10} In the present case, the prosecutor’s remark is isolated and is sandwiched between an affirmation that the jury is the determiner of credibility and an analysis of the evidence showing corroboration.

2013Slagle v. Bagley, 457 F.3d 501 (6th Cir.2006); and State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2008-Ohio-2 , 880 N.E.2d 31 . {¶10} In the present case, the prosecutor’s remark is isolated and is sandwiched between an affirmation that the jury is the determiner of credibility and an analysis of the evidence showing corroboration.

2013Slagle v. Bagley, 457 F.3d 501 (6th Cir.2006); and State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2008-Ohio-2 , 880 N.E.2d 31 . {¶10} In the present case, the prosecutor’s remark is isolated and is sandwiched between an affirmation that the jury is the determiner of credibility and an analysis of the evidence showing corroboration.

2007Id. at 93-94 , quoting U.S. v. Milbrand (C.A.2, 1995), 58 F.3d 841 , 847-48 . "[T]he question whether a fine is constitutionally excessive calls for the application of a constitutional standard to the facts of a particular case, and in this context de novo review of that question is appropriate." U.S. v. Bajakajian (1998), 524 U.S. 321 , 336 , fn. 10. {¶ 18} In his final assignment of error, McShepard offers no argument to support a claim that the Eighth Amendment was violated.

2007Id. at 93-94 , quoting U.S. v. Milbrand (C.A.2, 1995), 58 F.3d 841 , 847-48 . "[T]he question whether a fine is constitutionally excessive calls for the application of a constitutional standard to the facts of a particular case, and in this context de novo review of that question is appropriate." U.S. v. Bajakajian (1998), 524 U.S. 321 , 336 , fn. 10. {¶ 18} In his final assignment of error, McShepard offers no argument to support a claim that the Eighth Amendment was violated.

2007Id. at 93-94 , quoting U.S. v. Milbrand (C.A.2, 1995), 58 F.3d 841 , 847-48 . "[T]he question whether a fine is constitutionally excessive calls for the application of a constitutional standard to the facts of a particular case, and in this context de novo review of that question is appropriate." U.S. v. Bajakajian (1998), 524 U.S. 321 , 336 , fn. 10. {¶ 18} In his final assignment of error, McShepard offers no argument to support a claim that the Eighth Amendment was violated.