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.
63 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Clevelandgreen2 sentences2019Portage No. 2011-P-0091, 2012-Ohio-6127 , ¶58. {¶71} “When reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct. * * * This presumption arises because the [jury] had an opportunity to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor in weighing the credibility of the witnesses.” Id. at ¶59, quoting Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 , 79–81 (1984). {¶72} Mr. Tenney argues the “overwhelming weight of the evidence supports the determination that [K.T.’s] injury was the result 2018Co. , 54 Ohio St.2d 279 , 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978), syllabus. {¶ 10} " ' "[W]hen reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct." ' " Id. at ¶ 10, quoting Warnecke at ¶ 13 , quoting State v. Wilson , 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , ¶ 24, 865 N.E.2d 1264 . " 'The rationale for this presumption is that the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the evidence by viewing witnesses and observing their demeanor, voice inflection, and gestures.' " Id. , quoting Warnecke at ¶ 13 , | 14 | 51 |
C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co.green2 sentences2022Morris Co. v. Foley Const. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 , 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978), syllabus. {¶28} “[W]hen reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct.” State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , ¶ 24. 2022Morris Co. v. Foley Const. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 , 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978), syllabus. {¶28} “[W]hen reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct.” State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , ¶ 24. | 6 | 36 |
In Re K.W., Unpublished Decision (9-22-2006)green2 sentences2011Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279 , 8 O.O.3d 261 , 376 N.E.2d 578 , syllabus (“Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence”); In re K.W., Franklin App. No. 06AP-731, 2006-Ohio-4908 , 2006 WL 2708460 , ¶ 6 (stating that an appellate court will not reverse a finding that a person is a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization under R.C. 5122.01 as against the manifest weight of the evidence if it is supported by some competent, credible evid 2011Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279 , 376 N.E.2d 578 , syllabus (“Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence”); In re K.W., Franklin App. No. 06AP-731, 2006-Ohio-4908, ¶ 6 (stating that an appellate court will not reverse a finding that a person is a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization under R.C. 5122.01 as against the manifest weight of the evidence if it is supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential el | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2022Morris Co. v. Foley Const. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 , 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978), syllabus. {¶28} “[W]hen reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct.” State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , ¶ 24. 2022Morris Co. v. Foley Const. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 , 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978), syllabus. {¶28} “[W]hen reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct.” State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , ¶ 24. | 27 | 2007–2022 |
State v. Thompkins
red
2 sentences2022When applying the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review, “‘[t]he court, reviewing the entire record, 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.’” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). {¶53} “[W]hen reviewing a 2022When applying the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review, “‘[t]he court, reviewing the entire record, 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.’” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). {¶53} “[W]hen reviewing a | 4 | 2005–2022 |
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences2022When applying the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review, “‘[t]he court, reviewing the entire record, 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.’” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). {¶53} “[W]hen reviewing a 2022When applying the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review, “‘[t]he court, reviewing the entire record, 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.’” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). {¶53} “[W]hen reviewing a | 2 | 2005–2022 |
Morgan v. Mikhail, 08ap-87 (9-11-2008)
green
1 sentence2018Franklin Nos. 08AP-87 and 08AP-88, 2008-Ohio-4598 , 2008 WL 4174063 , ¶ 66, quoting Burke v. State , 104 Ohio St. 220 , 222, 135 N.E. 644 (1922). " 'Generally, the holder of a [promissory note] * * * establishes a prima facie case for payment on a note where the note is placed in evidence and the makers' signature(s) is (are) admitted.' " Gallwitz v. Novel , 5th Dist. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Savchuk Children
green
1 sentence2016In re M.H., 2009- Ohio-6911, at ¶ 17; In re Savchuk Children, 180 Ohio App.3d 349 , 2008-Ohio- 6877, at ¶ 33; In re D.W., 2007-Ohio-2552, at ¶ 18 . “‘[W]hen reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct.’” In re Freed Children at ¶ 25, quoting State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio- 2202, ¶ 24, citing Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80-81 (1984). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Matter of D.W., 06ca42 (5-21-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2016In re M.H., 2009- Ohio-6911, at ¶ 17; In re Savchuk Children, 180 Ohio App.3d 349 , 2008-Ohio- 6877, at ¶ 33; In re D.W., 2007-Ohio-2552, at ¶ 18 . “‘[W]hen reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct.’” In re Freed Children at ¶ 25, quoting State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio- 2202, ¶ 24, citing Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80-81 (1984). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Jenks
yellow
2 sentences2012“An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 22} In contrast, when reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review, the court “ ‘review[s] the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibi 2012“An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 22} In contrast, when reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review, the court “ ‘review[s] the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibi | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Reeves, 2006-T-0099 (9-14-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2009No. 2006-T-0099, 2007-Ohio-4765 , ¶ 14 , citing Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77 , 79-81 . {¶ 86} Here, Ms. Carter testified that as she took four-year-old Adam out of the car Mr. Burkhart hit her in the head three or four times on the left side, grabbed her by her hair, jerked her around until she and the child fell to the ground, although she did not remember whether he hit her with his fist or open hand. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Thomas, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2005)
green
1 sentence2009No. 2004-L-176, 2005-Ohio-6570 , at ¶ 29 . {¶ 85} "When reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct. *** This presumption arises because the trial judge had an opportunity to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor in weighing the credibility of the witnesses." State v. Reeves , 11th Dist. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Thompkins
red
1 sentence2005The discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which evidence weighs heavily against the conviction." State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 387 , 1997-Ohio-52 , quoting State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 175 , 485 N.E.2d 717 . {¶ 36} Thacker was convicted of Murder in violation of R.C. § 2903.02 (B), which states: "No person shall cause the death of another as a proximate result of the offender's committing or attempting to commit an offense of violence that is a felony of the first or second degree and that is not a violation of se | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.