plain error in a civil case doctrine in Ohio

2026"In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to those extremely rare cases where exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, and where the error complained of, if left uncorrected, would have a material adverse effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial proceedings." Goldfuss v. Davidson, 1997-Ohio-401, ¶ 24 .

2025“An appellate court ‘must proceed with the utmost caution’ in applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case.” Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 2015-Ohio-3731, ¶ 27 , quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 1997-Ohio-401, ¶ 24 .

2014In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to those extremely rare cases where exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, and where the error complained of, if left uncorrected, would have a material adverse effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial proceedings. [Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 , 436 N.E.2d 1001 (1982)]; LeFort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 121, 124 , 512 N.E.2d 640 (

2014In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to those extremely rare cases where exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, and where the error complained of, if left uncorrected, would have a material adverse effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial proceedings. [Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 , 436 N.E.2d 1001 (1982)]; LeFort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 121, 124 , 512 N.E.2d 640 (

2025“An appellate court ‘must proceed with the utmost caution’ in applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case.” Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 2015-Ohio-3731, ¶ 27 , quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 1997-Ohio-401, ¶ 24 .

2020In addition, “[a]n appellate court ‘must proceed with the utmost caution’ in applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case.” Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 144 Ohio St.3d 278 , 2015–Ohio–3731, 42 N.E.2d 718, ¶ 27 , quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997).

2026State v. Graham, 2020-Ohio-6700, ¶ 93 , citing State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22 (“The [appellant] is therefore required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.”); see also State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 557-558 (1995) (ineffective assistance claim requires (1) deficient performance Case No. 25 MO 0007 – 25 – with strong presumption in favor of counsel without second-guessing strategic decisions and (2) prejudice rend

2024(Emphasis in original.) {¶18} Here, the Bressis’ brief focuses on this Court’s decision in Collins, 2020-Ohio-21, at ¶ 27-28 , as the reason the trial court allegedly committed plain error.

2024Lucas No. L-04-1091, 2004-Ohio-5665, ¶ 8 , quoting In re Holmes, 8th Dist.

2022Therefore, as more recently set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court, "in order for a court to find plain error in a civil case, an appellant must establish (1) a deviation from a legal rule, (2) that the error was obvious, and (3) that the error affected the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process and therefore challenged the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process." State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196 , 2017-Ohio-7565 , ¶ 40, citing Goldfuss at syllabus; see, e.g., Whitson v. Dixie Imps., Inc., 12th Dist.

2022Therefore, as more recently set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court, "in order for a court to find plain error in a civil case, an appellant must establish (1) a deviation from a legal rule, (2) that the error was obvious, and (3) that the error affected the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process and therefore challenged the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process." State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196 , 2017-Ohio-7565 , ¶ 40, citing Goldfuss at syllabus; see, e.g., Whitson v. Dixie Imps., Inc., 12th Dist.

2022Lake No. 2021-L-027, 2021-Ohio-2884, ¶ 24 , quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997). {¶8} Father has not advanced a plain error argument on appeal.

2021However, “[a]n appellate court ‘must proceed with the utmost caution’ in applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case.” Risner at ¶ 27, quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997); Jones v Cleveland Clinic Found., __Ohio St.3d__, 2020-Ohio-3780 , __N.E.3d__, ¶ 24.

2021In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to those extremely rare cases where exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, and where the error complained of, if left uncorrected, would have a material adverse effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial proceedings. {¶ 27} "Simply stated, the Equal Protection Clauses require that individuals be treated in a manner similar to others in like circumstances." McCrone v. Bank One C

2021In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to those extremely rare cases where exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, and where the error complained of, if left uncorrected, would have a material adverse effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial proceedings. {¶ 27} "Simply stated, the Equal Protection Clauses require that individuals be treated in a manner similar to others in like circumstances." McCrone v. Bank One C

2020In addition, “[a]n appellate court ‘must proceed with the utmost caution’ in applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case.” Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 144 Ohio St.3d 278 , 2015–Ohio–3731, 42 N.E.2d 718, ¶ 27 , quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997).

2019Butler No. CA2006-12-105, 2007-Ohio-3350 , ¶14 and 15, our colleagues from the Twelfth District succinctly stated the following: Upon adjudicating a child as abused, neglected, or dependent, a juvenile court may award legal custody of a child to a parent or a nonparent upon a timely motion.

2017Lake No. 2013-L-077, 2014-Ohio-5764 , set forth the test that must be met for a trial court to award custody to a non-parent, as follows: {¶27} In a child custody proceeding between a parent and a non-parent, the trial court must find the parent unsuitable before awarding custody to the non-parent.

2013“In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to those extremely rare cases where exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, and where the error complained of, if left uncorrected, would have a material adverse effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial proceedings.” Id. {¶14} As stated above, Father did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision, and has therefore forfeited all but plain error.

2011Mr. McClain correctly notes that the magistrate issued a temporary order stating that any refund for the 2009 tax year “shall be divided equally between the parties.” However, that order was interlocutory, and “[i]n a domestic relations action, interlocutory orders are merged within the final decree, and the right to enforce such interlocutory orders does not extend beyond the decree, unless they have been reduced to a separate judgment or they have been considered by the trial court and specifically referred to within the decree.” Colom v. Colom (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 245 , 389 N.E.2d 856 , at

2011Mr. McClain correctly notes that the magistrate issued a temporary order stating that any refund for the 2009 tax year “shall be divided equally between the parties.” However, that order was interlocutory, and “[i]n a domestic relations action, interlocutory orders are merged within the final decree, and the right to enforce such interlocutory orders does not extend beyond the decree, unless they have been reduced to a separate judgment or they have been considered by the trial court and specifically referred to within the decree.” Colom v. Colom (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 245 , 389 N.E.2d 856 , at

2009“Plain error” in a civil case is error that is “ ‘obvious and prejudicial although neither objected to nor affirmatively waived which, if permitted, would have a material adverse effect on the character and public confidence in judicial proceedings.’ ” In re J.M., Clermont App. No. CA2006-11-096, 2007-Ohio-4219 , 2007 WL 2350125 , ¶ 31, quoting Schade v. Carnegie Body Co. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 , 24 O.O.3d 316 , 436 N.E.2d 1001 . {¶ 28} “In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to thos

2009“Plain error” in a civil case is error that is “ ‘obvious and prejudicial although neither objected to nor affirmatively waived which, if permitted, would have a material adverse effect on the character and public confidence in judicial proceedings.’ ” In re J.M., Clermont App. No. CA2006-11-096, 2007-Ohio-4219 , 2007 WL 2350125 , ¶ 31, quoting Schade v. Carnegie Body Co. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 , 24 O.O.3d 316 , 436 N.E.2d 1001 . {¶ 28} “In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to thos

2009“Plain error” in a civil case is error that is “ ‘obvious and prejudicial although neither objected to nor affirmatively waived which, if permitted, would have a material adverse effect on the character and public confidence in judicial proceedings.’ ” In re J.M., Clermont App. No. CA2006-11-096, 2007-Ohio-4219 , 2007 WL 2350125 , ¶ 31, quoting Schade v. Carnegie Body Co. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 , 24 O.O.3d 316 , 436 N.E.2d 1001 . {¶ 28} “In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to thos