statistical analysis (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

statistical analysis in Ohio

10 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1996–2020 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
cluster 491507green
ca6 · 1987 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1996–1999
2 sentences

1999They must also bear a logical connection to the facts and circumstances being analyzed. * * * (Citations omitted.) Further, "[f]or statistics to be valid and helpful in a discrimination case, `both the methodology and the explanatory power of the statistical analysis must be sufficient to permit an inference of discrimination.'" Simpson v. Midland-Ross Corp. (C.A.6, 1987), 823 F.2d 937 , 944 .

1997“For statistics to be valid and helpful in a.discrimination case, ‘both the methodology and the explanatory power of the statistical analysis must be sufficient to permit an inference of discrimination.’ ” Simpson v. Midland-Ross Corp. (C.A.6,1987), 823 F.2d 937, 944 , quoting Segar v. Smith (C.A.D.C.1984), 738 F.2d 1249, 1274 .

13
Columbus v. Swansongreen
ohioctapp · 2020 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020No. 18AP-524, 2020-Ohio-357, ¶ 26 (trial court did not err in excluding expert testimony that posed substantial danger of confusion). {¶ 27} In any event, and as Ms. Roty and Ms. Neff put it, "[t]his Court requires the expert opining on a statistical analysis to consider several 'independent factors' to rule out the most common nondiscriminatory reasons for termination." Reply Brief at 15; see also id. at 8 (cases "require the statistician to consider in his or her analysis the statistics of the independent factors in concluding that age was a determining factor in the RIF"), 9 (multiple prece

11
Saeid B. Amini v. Oberlin Collegegreen
ca6 · 2006 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016“When a plaintiff demonstrates a significant statistical disparity in the discharge rate, he or she has provided strong evidence that chance alone is not the cause of the discharge pattern.” Barnes, 896 F.2d at 1466-69 . “[F]or statistics to be valid and helpful in a discrimination case, both the methodology and the explanatory power of the statistical analysis must be sufficient to permit an inference of discrimination.” Amini v. Oberlin College, 440 F.3d 350, 359 (6th Cir.2006). {¶25} The Court finds that Plaintiff’s statistical data is insufficient to establish discriminatory intent.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Stair v. Phoenix Presentations, Inc. green
ohioctapp · 1996
2 sentences

2003Goad v. Sterling Commerce, Inc. (June 13, 2000), Franklin App. No. 99AP-321, citing to Stair, 116 Ohio App.3d at 510 .

2000Stair v. Phoenix Presentations, Inc. (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 500 , 510 .

22000–2003
Henry W. Segar v. William French Smith, Attorney General, Henry W. Segar, Cross-Appellants v. William French Smith, Attorney General green
cadc · 1984
2 sentences

1997“For statistics to be valid and helpful in a.discrimination case, ‘both the methodology and the explanatory power of the statistical analysis must be sufficient to permit an inference of discrimination.’ ” Simpson v. Midland-Ross Corp. (C.A.6,1987), 823 F.2d 937, 944 , quoting Segar v. Smith (C.A.D.C.1984), 738 F.2d 1249, 1274 .

1996In order “[f]or statistics to be valid and helpful in a discrimination case, ‘both the methodology and the explanatory power of the statistical analysis must be sufficient to permit an inference of discrimination.’ ” Simpson v. Midland-Ross Corp. (C.A.6, 1987), 823 F.2d 937 , 944, quoting Segar v. Smith (C.A.D.C., 1984), 738 F.2d 1249, 1274 .

21996–1997
Edmands v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio green
ohioctapp · 2017
1 sentence

2020Edmands, 2017-Ohio-8215, at ¶ 11 , citing Bartchy at ¶ 41-42. {¶ 46} Here, the hearing examiner was presented with conflicting opinions regarding the validity of the statistical analysis known as Method II.

12020–2020
Paul Kordenbrock v. Gene Scroggy, Warden, Kentucky State Prison green
ca6 · 1990
1 sentence

2016“When a plaintiff demonstrates a significant statistical disparity in the discharge rate, he or she has provided strong evidence that chance alone is not the cause of the discharge pattern.” Barnes, 896 F.2d at 1466-69 . “[F]or statistics to be valid and helpful in a discrimination case, both the methodology and the explanatory power of the statistical analysis must be sufficient to permit an inference of discrimination.” Amini v. Oberlin College, 440 F.3d 350, 359 (6th Cir.2006). {¶25} The Court finds that Plaintiff’s statistical data is insufficient to establish discriminatory intent.

12016–2016
Joseph v. Doraty green
ohioctapp · 1957
2 sentences

2011However, the trial court concluded that this clause merely constituted “an agreement to make an agreement in the future,” and therefore, was not an enforceable contract (citing to Joseph dba Chapman Motor Rebuilders v. Doraty (1957), 144 N.E.2d 111 , 77 Ohio Law Abs. 381 . {¶16} On appeal, HCC contends that the trial court misapplied contractual legal standards and failed to take into account more current, contrary Ohio authority.

2011However, the trial court concluded that this clause merely constituted “an agreement to make an agreement in the future,” and therefore, was not an enforceable contract (citing to Joseph dba Chapman Motor Rebuilders v. Doraty (1957), 144 N.E.2d 111 , 77 Ohio Law Abs. 381 . {¶16} On appeal, HCC contends that the trial court misapplied contractual legal standards and failed to take into account more current, contrary Ohio authority.

12011–2011
Litsinger Sign Co. v. American Sign Co. green
ohio · 1967
2 sentences

2011Litsinger Sign Co. v. American Sign Co. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 1, 14 , 227 N.E.2d 609 . {¶18} HCC presented a considerable amount of evidence to demonstrate that “primary service area” was a term-of-art common to the medical industry, and presented a statistical analysis as to what it considered HCC’s primary service area to include.

2011Litsinger Sign Co. v. American Sign Co. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 1, 14 , 227 N.E.2d 609 . {¶18} HCC presented a considerable amount of evidence to demonstrate that “primary service area” was a term-of-art common to the medical industry, and presented a statistical analysis as to what it considered HCC’s primary service area to include.

12011–2011
State ex rel. Yiamouyiannis v. Taft green
ohio · 1992
2 sentences

2011Yiamouyiannis v. Taft (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 205, 208-209 , 602 N.E.2d 644 , to support their claim that poll-worker error occurred.

2011Yiamouyiannis v. Taft (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 205, 208-209 , 602 N.E.2d 644 , to support their claim that poll-worker error occurred.

12011–2011

Where else courts name it

CA 28 (1978–2026) TX 27 (1992–2024) IL 14 (1978–2022) PA 12 (1958–2025) FL 12 (1997–2018) NY 11 (1985–2017) MI 10 (1992–2023) OH 10 (1996–2020) MA 9 (2000–2022) NJ 8 (1966–2020) MD 6 (2000–2018) IN 6 (2000–2017) NE 5 (1998–2022) WA 5 (2007–2023) DE 4 (1990–2022) AL 4 (1978–2015) OR 4 (1996–2018) AK 4 (1984–2022) AZ 4 (1999–2012) TN 4 (1998–2005) CO 3 (1977–2008) OK 3 (1995–2013) MT 3 (1994–2003) MO 3 (1993–1995) WI 3 (2016–2023) NC 3 (1981–2007) CT 3 (1974–1999) LA 2 (1994–1994) NV 2 (1991–2012) HI 2 (2023–2023) UT 2 (2012–2014)

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