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.
7 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2024 3 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. Dehassgreen2 sentences2024DeHass at 231, 234 (“[I]t is apparent that the jury believed the testimony of the prosecuting witness and the corroborating evidence presented by the state, and an examination of the bill of exceptions demonstrates that such evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty. . . . ”). 2024DeHass at 231, 234 (“[I]t is apparent that the jury believed the testimony of the prosecuting witness and the corroborating evidence presented by the state, and an examination of the bill of exceptions demonstrates that such evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty. . . . ”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huntergreen2 sentences2022See, e.g., State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 , 2011-Ohio-6524 , 960 N.E.2d 955 , ¶ 2; State v. Metz, 2019-Ohio-4054 , 146 N.E.3d 1190 , ¶ 125 (8th Dist.) (S. Gallagher, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (providing a more thorough discussion of the issue). 2022See, e.g., State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 , 2011-Ohio-6524 , 960 N.E.2d 955 , ¶ 2; State v. Metz, 2019-Ohio-4054 , 146 N.E.3d 1190 , ¶ 125 (8th Dist.) (S. Gallagher, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (providing a more thorough discussion of the issue). | 1 | 1 |
Scelza v. Mikhael, 22994 (5-9-2007)green2 sentences2007See, e.g., Scelza v. Mikhael, Summit App. No. 22994, 2007-Ohio-2199 , 2007 WL 1345827 , at ¶ 5 (Ninth District notes long-standing trend of applying Thompkins in both civil and criminal cases). 2007See, e.g., Scelza v. Mikhael, Summit App. No. 22994, 2007-Ohio-2199 , 2007 WL 1345827 , at ¶ 5 (Ninth District notes long-standing trend of applying Thompkins in both civil and criminal cases). | 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. Thompkins
red
2 sentences2022When reviewing the weight of the evidence, the reviewing court “‘weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, [the trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed * * *.’” 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); Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 , ¶ 17 (applying the 2022When reviewing the weight of the evidence, the reviewing court “‘weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, [the trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed * * *.’” 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); Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 , ¶ 17 (applying the | 4 | 2012–2022 |
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences2022When reviewing the weight of the evidence, the reviewing court “‘weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, [the trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed * * *.’” 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); Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 , ¶ 17 (applying the 2022When reviewing the weight of the evidence, the reviewing court “‘weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, [the trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed * * *.’” 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); Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 , ¶ 17 (applying the | 3 | 2012–2022 |
Eastley v. Volkman
green
2 sentences2022When reviewing the weight of the evidence, the reviewing court “‘weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, [the trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed * * *.’” 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); Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 , ¶ 17 (applying the 2022When reviewing the weight of the evidence, the reviewing court “‘weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, [the trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed * * *.’” 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); Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 , ¶ 17 (applying the | 3 | 2013–2022 |
State v. Metz
green
2 sentences2022See, e.g., State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 , 2011-Ohio-6524 , 960 N.E.2d 955 , ¶ 2; State v. Metz, 2019-Ohio-4054 , 146 N.E.3d 1190 , ¶ 125 (8th Dist.) (S. Gallagher, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (providing a more thorough discussion of the issue). 2022See, e.g., State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 , 2011-Ohio-6524 , 960 N.E.2d 955 , ¶ 2; State v. Metz, 2019-Ohio-4054 , 146 N.E.3d 1190 , ¶ 125 (8th Dist.) (S. Gallagher, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (providing a more thorough discussion of the issue). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Fantozzi v. Sandusky Cement Products Co.
green
2 sentences2014Miami No. 07CA12, 2008‑Ohio‑2899, ¶ 76, citing Fantozzi, 64 Ohio St.3d 601 , 597 N.E.2d 474 . 2014Miami No. 07CA12, 2008‑Ohio‑2899, ¶ 76, citing Fantozzi, 64 Ohio St.3d 601 , 597 N.E.2d 474 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Tewarson v. Simon
green
2 sentences2012For example, the Ninth District stated how a review on manifest weight is to be conducted: “ ‘The [reviewing] 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.’ ” (Aterations made in Tewarson.) Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103, 115 , 750 N.E.2d 176 (9th Dist.2001), quoting Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 , 2012For example, the Ninth District stated how a review on manifest weight is to be conducted: “ ‘The [reviewing] 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.’ ” (Aterations made in Tewarson.) Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103, 115 , 750 N.E.2d 176 (9th Dist.2001), quoting Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 , | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland
green
2 sentences2012For example, the Ninth District stated how a review on manifest weight is to be conducted: “ ‘The [reviewing] 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.’ ” (Aterations made in Tewarson.) Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103, 115 , 750 N.E.2d 176 (9th Dist.2001), quoting Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 , 2012For example, the Ninth District stated how a review on manifest weight is to be conducted: “ ‘The [reviewing] 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.’ ” (Aterations made in Tewarson.) Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103, 115 , 750 N.E.2d 176 (9th Dist.2001), quoting Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 , | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.