Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Thompkinsred2 sentences2026The manifest weight of evidence standard refers to whether there is a “‘greater amount of credible evidence . . . to support one side of the issue rather than the other.’” Id. at ¶ 25, quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). 2026The manifest weight of evidence standard refers to whether there is a “greater amount of credible evidence . . . to support one side of the issue rather than the other.” (Emphasis omitted.) State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). | 4 | 6 |
Eastley v. Volkmangreen2 sentences2026When deciding whether a judgment entered by the trial court is against the manifest weight of evidence, the appellate court “‘must always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.’” Id. at ¶ 28, quoting Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 21 . 2026The manifest weight of evidence standard refers to whether there is a “‘greater amount of credible evidence . . . to support one side of the issue rather than the other.’” Id. at ¶ 25, citing Eastly v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 12 , quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pawlowski v. Pawlowski
green
1 sentence2025“Valuing property involves factual inquiries, requiring an appellate court to apply a manifest weight of evidence standard of review.” Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Jenks
yellow
1 sentence2022State v. Rankin, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-1118, 2011-Ohio- 5131, ¶ 12, citing State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 36} While sufficiency of the evidence tests whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction, the manifest weight of evidence standard "addresses the evidence's effect of inducing belief." State v. Haas, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-35, 2011- Ohio-2676, ¶ 16. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Cobb, Ca2007-06-153 (10-6-2008)
green
1 sentence2019Butler No. -2- Butler CA2018-07-137 CA2007-06-153, 2008-Ohio-5210, ¶ 94 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2018Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 , 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978), syllabus. {¶58} The Ohio Supreme Court explained the manifest-weight-of-evidence standard as follows: Weight of the evidence concerns “the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other. 2018Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 , 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978), syllabus. {¶58} The Ohio Supreme Court explained the manifest-weight-of-evidence standard as follows: Weight of the evidence concerns “the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Jackson v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2013Jackson, supra, at ¶41 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.