71 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1938–2026 26 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re M.R.green2 sentences2026The trial court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) supports the award of permanent custody. {¶ 71} In her assignment of error, mother argues that the trial court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) is against the manifest weight of the evidence.2 Importantly, she does not argue that the trial court erred in making its 12-out-of-22 finding. {¶ 72} “‘[T]he findings under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) are alternative findings, [and] each is independently sufficient to use as a basis to grant the Agency’s motion for permanent custody.’” (Brackets in original.) In re A.M., 2 2020See id., (“Moreover, * * * there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that it is in M.R.’s best interest to grant the Agency’s motion for permanent custody.”). {¶31} Addressing R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a), which concerns the relationships with the children, the children’s parents, siblings, relatives, and foster-care givers, the record contains evidence and the trial court noted that neither Michael nor Montana would engage the younger children during supervised visitations often -17- Case Nos. 5-19-15, 16, 17, 18 overfeeding them to the point they bec | 4 | 12 |
Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Wickhamgreen2 sentences2018See also Sterling Drug at 19, 406 N.E.2d 1363 ("the ultimate test as to the validity of an agency rule is whether it is unreasonable or unlawful"). 2018See Sterling Drug at 23-24, 406 N.E.2d 1363 ("We have concluded such initial agency determination can be fairly accommodated * * * by according to the agency rule a presumption that the agency conclusion of the existence of jurisdictional facts was reached upon sufficient evidence and placing upon a plaintiff challenging the existence of such facts the burden to prove such non-existence by a preponderance of substantial, probative and reliable evidence upon the whole record sufficient to rebut such presumption and to establish the facts are other than as found by the agency."). {¶ 76} Frye adv | 3 | 3 |
In re Hayesred2 sentences2023Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 (2000); In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 (1997). 2013Nos. 9–06–12, 9–06–13, 2006–Ohio–4841, ¶ 9, citing In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 (1997). | 2 | 3 |
Cincinnati City School District v. State Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2025Decision at p. 7 and fn. 3. {¶ 32} In this regard, R.C. 119.12(L) provides that “[u]nless otherwise provided by law, the court may grant a request for the admission of additional evidence when satisfied that the additional evidence is newly discovered and could not with reasonable diligence have been ascertained prior to the hearing before the agency.” “The decision to admit additional evidence lies within the discretion of the court of common pleas, but only after the court has determined that the evidence is newly discovered and that it could not with reasonable diligence have been ascertain 2006In Cincinnati City School District v. State Bd. of Edn. (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 305 , 317 , this court stated: "The decision to admit additional evidence lies within the discretion of the court of common pleas, but only after the court has determined that the evidence is newly discovered and that it could not with reasonable diligence have been ascertained prior to the agency hearing." Northfield contends that the trial court's discretion to deny the motion did not arise because it had determined that the two legal requirements for admissibility were not established. | 1 | 5 |
In re R.A.green1 sentence2026“Because ‘the first prong of the permanent custody test is satisfied where “one or more” of the conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) applies, the juvenile court’s undisputed finding under [Section (B)(1)(d)] is sufficient to establish the first requirement of the statute.’” (Brackets in original.) In re L.G., 2024-Ohio-4554 , ¶ 44 (6th Dist.), quoting In re R.A., 2022-Ohio-1748, ¶ 34 (6th Dist.). {¶ 73} Here, the trial court made findings under both (B)(1)(a) and (B)(1)(d). | 1 | 1 |
In re H.S.green1 sentence2026On appeal, Jessica argues that the trial court should have granted her a two-month extension so that she could procure housing for herself and J.H. {¶42} “The decision as to whether to grant a parent’s request for an extension of temporary custody rather than granting permanent custody to the Agency is one left to the discretion of the trial court.” In re H.S., 2023-Ohio-3210, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
In re Dn.R.green1 sentence2026Manifest-Weight Review of Permanent-Custody Decisions {¶9} “When an appellate court reviews whether a trial court’s permanent custody decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court ‘“weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed and a new trial ordered.”’” In re Dn.R., 2020-Ohio-6794, ¶ 16 (3d Dist.), quoting Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-21 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ungergreen1 sentence2026A trial court’s decision whether to continue a matter is “‘entrusted to the broad, sound discretion of the trial judge.’” In re Ka.C., 2015-Ohio-1158 , ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Tewarson v. Simongreen1 sentence2026Manifest-Weight Review of Permanent-Custody Decisions {¶9} “When an appellate court reviews whether a trial court’s permanent custody decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court ‘“weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed and a new trial ordered.”’” In re Dn.R., 2020-Ohio-6794, ¶ 16 (3d Dist.), quoting Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-21 | 1 | 1 |
Golden Christian Academy v. Zelmangreen1 sentence2025Sept. 29, 1994). {¶ 33} “ ‘Newly discovered’ evidence under R.C. 119.12 pertains to evidence that existed at the time of the administrative hearing; the term does not refer to newly created evidence, such as evidence created after the hearing.’ ” Beach v. Ohio Bd. of Nursing, 2011- Ohio-3451, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.), citing Golden Christian Academy v. Zelman, 144 Ohio App.3d 513, 517 (10th Dist. 2001). {¶ 34} Having examined all these records, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision not to admit or consider them. | 1 | 1 |
In re R.L.green1 sentence2025See In re R.L., 2012-Ohio-6049, ¶ 29 (2d Dist.); In re M.R., 2011-Ohio-3733, at ¶ 18 . {¶18} Furthermore, although Emma was not present at the hearing, she was represented by counsel who made arguments in opposition to the Agency’s motion on her behalf and who engaged in a lengthy and robust cross examination of the Agency’s sole witness. | 1 | 1 |
| In re A.B.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Klinckgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Awkalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Murraygreen | 1 | 1 |
| W.C. Cupe Community School v. Zelman, 07ap-882 (6-10-2008)green | 1 | 1 |
| Francis v. Showcase Cinema Eastgategreen | 1 | 1 |
| MS Dealer Service Corp. v. Franklingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Phyllis Miller v. Maxwell's International Inc., Dba Maxwell's Plum, Debtor in Possession Carlo Galazzo, Gen. Mgt., Dino La Rosa Don Bohn Don Schupakgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re S.W.
green
2 sentences2022Marion Nos. 9-18- -9- Case Nos. 5-21-25 and 5-21-26 29 and 9-18-30, 2019-Ohio-2068, ¶ 19 , quoting In re A.M., 3d Dist. 2019In re S.W., supra at ¶ 21 . | 5 | 2019–2022 |
Burger Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission
green
2 sentences1983Further, the Burger Brewing holding was followed by the Supreme Court in Sterling Drug v. Wickham (1980), 63 Ohio St. 2d 16, 18 [ 17 O.O.3d 10 ], where the court stated: “In Burger Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm. (1973), 34 Ohio St. 2d 93 [ 63 O.O.2d 149 ], this court held that preenforcement review of an agency rule under now repealed R.C. 119.11 was precluded, but that the validity of the rule could properly be adjudicated by a court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, under the Declaratory Judgment Act if a justiciable controversy existed between adverse parties and speedy relief 1983Further, the Burger Brewing holding was followed by the Supreme Court in Sterling Drug v. Wickham (1980), 63 Ohio St. 2d 16, 18 [ 17 O.O.3d 10 ], where the court stated: “In Burger Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm. (1973), 34 Ohio St. 2d 93 [ 63 O.O.2d 149 ], this court held that preenforcement review of an agency rule under now repealed R.C. 119.11 was precluded, but that the validity of the rule could properly be adjudicated by a court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, under the Declaratory Judgment Act if a justiciable controversy existed between adverse parties and speedy relief | 3 | 1975–1983 |
Troxel v. Granville
green
2 sentences2023Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 (2000); In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 (1997). 2023Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 (2000); In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 (1997). | 2 | 2020–2023 |
Eastley v. Volkman
green
1 sentence2026Manifest-Weight Review of Permanent-Custody Decisions {¶9} “When an appellate court reviews whether a trial court’s permanent custody decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court ‘“weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed and a new trial ordered.”’” In re Dn.R., 2020-Ohio-6794, ¶ 16 (3d Dist.), quoting Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-21 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In re R.H
neutral
1 sentence2025For the reasons that follow, we disagree. {¶13} In support of her contention, Venessa relies heavily on In re R.H., 2022-Ohio-3961 (3d Dist.), a case in which this court found that the trial court erred by granting legal custody to the Agency following a “review hearing.” Notably, in that case, the parties appeared for a “review hearing” in a case in which no motion for legal custody was pending. {¶14} During the hearing, the trial court in In re R.H. sua sponte transformed the hearing into a legal custody hearing. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State Ex Rel. Ohio Department of Health v. Sowald
green
1 sentence2025Ohio Dept. of Health v. Sowald, 1992-Ohio-1 (reversing the court of appeals decision to deny a writ of mandamus to compel an agency hearing officer to vacate an award of attorney fees to appellee under R.C. 119.092, the statutory counterpart to R.C. 2335.39 relevant to administrative proceedings). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re M.R.
green
1 sentence2025See In re R.L., 2012-Ohio-6049, ¶ 29 (2d Dist.); In re M.R., 2011-Ohio-3733, at ¶ 18 . {¶18} Furthermore, although Emma was not present at the hearing, she was represented by counsel who made arguments in opposition to the Agency’s motion on her behalf and who engaged in a lengthy and robust cross examination of the Agency’s sole witness. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re W.W.
neutral
1 sentence2024Licking No. 2023 CA 00057, 2023-Ohio-4112, ¶ 30 . {¶58} Upon review, we find sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to grant the Agency's motion for permanent custody, and do not [Cite as In re E.G., 2024-Ohio-2043 .] find any manifest miscarriage of justice. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Peters v. Columbus Steel Castings Co.
green
1 sentence2024The case that Repple cites in support of its contention, Peters v. Columbus Steel Castings Co., 115 Ohio St.3d 134 , 2007-Ohio-4787 , ¶ 19, says nothing about the agency exception and, in any event, is factually distinguishable from the present case. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re D.B.
green
1 sentence2024The G.A.L. cited Parents’ drug use, failure to take responsibility for actions leading to D.B.’s removal, violence in the [Cite as In re D.B., 2024-Ohio-1873 .] relationship, mental health issues, and the child’s expressed desire to remain in relative placement due to safety concerns with Parents. {¶46} By Judgment Entry dated November 14, 2023, the trial court granted the Agency’s motion for permanent custody of D.B. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re D.B.
green
1 sentence2024The G.A.L. cited Parents’ drug use, failure to take responsibility for actions leading to D.B.’s removal, violence in the [Cite as In re D.B., 2024-Ohio-1872 .] relationship, mental health issues, and the child’s expressed desire to remain in relative placement due to safety concerns with Parents. {¶46} By Judgment Entry dated November 14, 2023, the trial court granted the Agency’s motion for permanent custody of D.B. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re E.G.
neutral
1 sentence2024Licking No. 2023 CA 00057, 2023-Ohio-4112, ¶ 30 . {¶58} Upon review, we find sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to grant the Agency's motion for permanent custody, and do not [Cite as In re E.G., 2024-Ohio-2043 .] find any manifest miscarriage of justice. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re T.C.
neutral
1 sentence2023“Reasonable effort” is “an honest, purposeful effort, free of malice and the design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage.” (Internal quotations and citation omitted.) In re T.C., 2023-Ohio-1922 , 216 N.E.3d 811 , ¶ 33 (6th Dist.). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re E.H.
green
2 sentences2022A review hearing was held on July 30, 2021, and the trial court concluded there were no compelling reasons to preclude the request for permanent custody. {¶10} A hearing on the motion for permanent custody was scheduled for September 28, 2021, and then continued to November 4, 2021. {¶11} On November 3, 2021, Father filed a motion to extend temporary custody. {¶12} The trial court rescheduled the permanent custody hearing for December 14, 2021. {¶13} On that date, the trial court heard evidence on Father’s motions for legal custody and extension of temporary custody, and on the Agency’s motion 2022We disagree. [Cite as In re E.H., 2022-Ohio-1682 .] {¶70} Father argues that once he became aware he is conclusively E.H.’s father, he began working on case plan services: he obtained the Lighthouse parenting evaluation with Dr. Thomas and the CommQuest substance abuse evaluation. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re J.J.
neutral
2 sentences2022On April 21, 2022, the trial court granted the Agency’s motion via judgment entry. [Cite as In re J.J., 2022-Ohio-4196 .] {¶9} The following evidence is adduced from the record of the permanent custody hearing. {¶10} The Agency has received reports about Mother since 2003, which predates the birth of the children. 2022If the trial court does not permit the children to reside in the same household, Mother stated that Brother would be willing to care for the other child. {¶31} The GAL recommended that the trial court grant the Agency’s motion for permanent custody. {¶32} The trial court found the children have been in the temporary custody of the Agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period. [Cite as In re J.J., 2022-Ohio-4196 .] {¶33} By an Opinion and Judgment Entry filed April 21, 2022, the trial court granted the motion of the Agency for permanent custody of D.J. and J.J. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re D.J.
neutral
2 sentences2022On April 21, 2022, the trial court granted the Agency’s motion via judgment entry. [Cite as In re D.J., 2022-Ohio-4195 .] {¶9} The following evidence is adduced from the record of the permanent custody hearing. {¶10} The Agency has received reports about Mother since 2003, which predates the birth of the children. 2022If the trial court does not permit the children to reside in the same household, Mother stated that Brother would be willing to care for the other child. {¶31} The GAL recommended that the trial court grant the Agency’s motion for permanent custody. {¶32} The trial court found the children have been in the temporary custody of the Agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period. [Cite as In re D.J., 2022-Ohio-4195 .] {¶33} By an Opinion and Judgment Entry filed April 21, 2022, the trial court granted the motion of the Agency for permanent custody of D.J. and J.J. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Davis v. Flickinger
green
1 sentence2022Deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility is “crucial in a child custody case, where there may be much evidence in the parties' demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well.” Davis, supra, 77 Ohio St.3d at 419 . {¶46} Finally, Mother contends the trial court's determination that the best interest of the child would be served by the granting of permanent custody to the Agency was in error because of Mother’s concerns regarding a potential adoptive placement. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re L.W.
green
1 sentence2022Id. {¶29} Brandy claims in her first assignment of error that the trial court’s granting of the Agency’s motion for permanent custody was not supported by -25- Case No. 5-21-20 sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
I Sports v. Img Worldwide, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022The agency exception applies in cases where “the non-signatory [must be allowed] to invoke arbitration to avoid evisceration of the arbitration agreement between the signatories.” I Sports v. IMG Worldwide, Inc., 157 Ohio App.3d 593 , 2004-Ohio-3113 , 813 N.E.2d 4 (8th Dist. 2022The agency exception applies in cases where “the non-signatory [must be allowed] to invoke arbitration to avoid evisceration of the arbitration agreement between the signatories.” I Sports v. IMG Worldwide, Inc., 157 Ohio App.3d 593 , 2004-Ohio-3113 , 813 N.E.2d 4 (8th Dist. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In re H.S. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In re J.G. neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In re J.G. neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In re E.S.K. neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In re A.N. neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re B.C. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In re I.G. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Jemo Associates, Inc. v. Lindley green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In Re Bishop green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Karches v. City of Cincinnati green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Goldfuss v. Davidson green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In Re C.W., Unpublished Decision (4-23-2004) neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In Matter of Goodwin, 17-08-12 (10-20-2008) neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In re M.B. neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In re M.R. neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In the Matter of McCain, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2007) green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Mathews v. Eldridge green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Uddin v. Embassy Suites Hotel green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Arnold v. The Arnold Corporation green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.