standards analysis in Ohio

10 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2020 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Bishopgreen ohioctapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017See State v. 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Bishop, 2014-Ohio-173 , 7 N.E.3d 605 , ¶ 2, 4 (1st Dist.); State v. Kostyuchenko, 2014- Ohio-324, 8 N.E.3d 353 , ¶ 4, 17 (1st Dist.).	1	1
Sayre v. Hoelzle-Sayregreen ohioctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See Sayre v. Hoelzle-Sayre (1994), 100 Ohio App.3d 203 , 653 N.E.2d 712 . {¶ 14} In the context of domestic-relations cases, the failure to request separate findings of fact and conclusions of law results in a presumption that, "the trial court properly applied the best interest test to the facts before it." Anthony , supra ; accord Sayre v. Hoelzle-Sayre , 100 Ohio App.3d at 203 , 653 N.E.2d at 712 . 2002See Sayre v. Hoelzle-Sayre (1994), 100 Ohio App.3d 203 , 653 N.E.2d 712 . {¶ 14} In the context of domestic-relations cases, the failure to request separate findings of fact and conclusions of law results in a presumption that, "the trial court properly applied the best interest test to the facts before it." Anthony , supra ; accord Sayre v. Hoelzle-Sayre , 100 Ohio App.3d at 203 , 653 N.E.2d at 712 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Thompkins red ohio · 1997 2 sentences 2020Although there are differences in the standards of analysis, because these inquiries overlap in significant ways, we find it efficient to address them together. {¶ 18} The Supreme Court of Ohio has "carefully distinguished the terms 'sufficiency' and 'weight' * * , declaring that 'manifest weight' and 'legal sufficiency' are 'both quantitatively and qualitatively different.' " Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 10 , quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997), paragraph two of the syllabus. 2020Despite the distinct differences in the standards of analysis between these two issues for review on appeal, they share some commonality, and we address them together to avoid restating matters in common to both. {¶ 25} The Supreme Court of Ohio has "carefully distinguished the terms 'sufficiency' and 'weight' * *, declaring that 'manifest weight' and 'legal sufficiency' are 'both quantitatively and qualitatively different.' " Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 10 , quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997), paragraph two of the syllabus.	2	2020–2020
Eastley v. Volkman green ohio · 2012 2 sentences 2020Despite the distinct differences in the standards of analysis between these two issues for review on appeal, they share some commonality, and we address them together to avoid restating matters in common to both. {¶ 25} The Supreme Court of Ohio has "carefully distinguished the terms 'sufficiency' and 'weight' * * , declaring that 'manifest weight' and 'legal sufficiency' are 'both quantitatively and qualitatively different.' " Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 10 , quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997), paragraph two of the syllabus. 2020Despite the distinct differences in the standards of analysis between these two issues for review on appeal, they share some commonality, and we address them together to avoid restating matters in common to both. {¶ 25} The Supreme Court of Ohio has "carefully distinguished the terms 'sufficiency' and 'weight' * *, declaring that 'manifest weight' and 'legal sufficiency' are 'both quantitatively and qualitatively different.' " Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 10 , quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997), paragraph two of the syllabus.	2	2020–2020
Kent v. United States green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 2009In stating the standards for waiver of jurisdiction by a juvenile court, the United States Supreme Court noted that juvenile proceedings must allow “the basic requirements of due process and fairness.” Kent v. United States (1966), 383 U.S. 541, 553 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 . 2009In stating the standards for waiver of jurisdiction by a juvenile court, the United States Supreme Court noted that juvenile proceedings must allow “the basic requirements of due process and fairness.” Kent v. United States (1966), 383 U.S. 541, 553 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 .	1	2009–2009
Miller v. Miller green ohio · 1988 1 sentence 2006Davis v. Flickinger (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 415 , 416-417 ; Miller v. Miller (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 71 , 74 .	1	2006–2006
Davis v. Flickinger green ohio · 1997 1 sentence 2006Davis v. Flickinger (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 415 , 416-417 ; Miller v. Miller (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 71 , 74 .	1	2006–2006
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine green scotus · 1981 1 sentence 2006Id. {¶ 14} Applying the foregoing standards to the claim of race discrimination, it is evident that Simmons-Means has not demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination.	1	2006–2006
Bank One, Dayton, N.A. v. Doughman green ohioctapp · 1988 2 sentences 2003On the other hand, we can set aside the dismissal of a case under Civ.R. 41(B)(2) “only if erroneous as a matter of law or against the manifest weight of the evidence.” 59 Ohio App.3d at 63 , 571 N.E.2d 442 . 752 {¶ 32} Consequently, IFD should have moved to dismiss the case under Civ.R. 41(B)(2), and the trial court should have considered the motion by applying the standards in that rule. 2003On the other hand, we can set aside the dismissal of a case under Civ.R. 41(B)(2) “only if erroneous as a matter of law or against the manifest weight of the evidence.” 59 Ohio App.3d at 63 , 571 N.E.2d 442 . 752 {¶ 32} Consequently, IFD should have moved to dismiss the case under Civ.R. 41(B)(2), and the trial court should have considered the motion by applying the standards in that rule.	1	2003–2003
Imler v. Cowan green ohioctapp · 1989 2 sentences 1999Imler v. Cowan (1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 359, 362 , 583 N.E.2d 1355, 1357 . 1999Imler v. Cowan (1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 359, 362 , 583 N.E.2d 1355, 1357 .	1	1999–1999
Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America green ohio · 1983 1 sentence 1988Yeager, supra, at 374 , 6 OBR at 425, 453 N.E. 2d at 671 .	1	1988–1988

Where else courts name it

TX 180 (1986–2025) PA 29 (1980–2025) WA 19 (1967–2018) NJ 12 (1987–2025) NY 12 (1961–2026) CA 12 (1965–2022) RI 10 (1976–2016) CT 10 (1988–2025) MD 10 (1987–2019) OH 10 (1988–2020) IL 9 (1958–2025) CO 7 (1980–2005) MA 7 (1990–2008) AL 7 (1982–2001) NM 6 (1981–2012) MN 5 (1987–2024) ID 5 (1985–2020) DE 5 (1984–2024) IA 5 (1970–2023) KS 4 (2004–2022) MI 4 (1974–1996) IN 4 (1974–2012) DC 4 (1968–1999) VT 3 (1987–1990) MO 3 (1965–1989) WI 3 (1978–1987) OR 3 (1983–2011) AZ 3 (1988–2015) ME 3 (2018–2025) FL 3 (1975–1997) MT 2 (1973–2002) NC 2 (2021–2021) AR 2 (2015–2019) ND 2 (1990–1993) AK 2 (1993–2002) SC 2 (2013–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check