281 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 38 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 sentences2025Weight concerns “‘the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.’” (Emphasis deleted.) Id., quoting Thompkins at 387 . {¶11} “In reviewing a weight of the evidence challenge, [this court] weigh[s] the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider[s] the credibility of the witnesses, and determine[s] whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trial court clearly 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed 2025Because we have determined that the convictions for disorderly conduct and OOB were not supported by sufficient evidence, we examine the manifest weight of the evidence in support of the failure-to-comply conviction. {¶40} When considering a weight-of-the-evidence claim, we review “‘the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses and determine 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 conviction must be reversed and a new tri | 25 | 234 |
State v. Ottengreen2 sentences2022Nos. 19734 and 19735, unreported. {¶37} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court: “[M]ust review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine 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 conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Otten (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 , 515 N.E.2d 1009 . {¶38} A weight of the evidence challenge indicates 2022Nos. 19734 and 19735, unreported. {¶37} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court: “[M]ust review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine 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 conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Otten (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 , 515 N.E.2d 1009 . {¶38} A weight of the evidence challenge indicates | 5 | 55 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences2023Hamilton No. C-180310, 2019-Ohio-3595, ¶ 12 , quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). {¶44} In reviewing a weight-of-the-evidence claim, we review “ ‘the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses and determine 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 conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’ ” State v. Bailey, 1st Dist. 2023Hamilton No. C-180310, 2019-Ohio-3595, ¶ 12 , quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). {¶44} In reviewing a weight-of-the-evidence claim, we review “ ‘the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses and determine 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 conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’ ” State v. Bailey, 1st Dist. | 3 | 28 |
State v. Baileygreen2 sentences2025Because we have determined that the convictions for disorderly conduct and OOB were not supported by sufficient evidence, we examine the manifest weight of the evidence in support of the failure-to-comply conviction. {¶40} When considering a weight-of-the-evidence claim, we review “‘the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses and determine 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 conviction must be reversed and a new tri 2024State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶31} When considering a weight-of-the-evidence claim, we review “‘the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses and determine 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 conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’” State v. Bailey, 2015-Ohio-2997, ¶ 59 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997). {¶32} The credibility of | 2 | 18 |
Eastley v. Volkmangreen2 sentences2018If an appellant challenges the weight of the evidence, a reviewing court will apply the weight of the evidence standard set forth in State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997), while remaining “mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 21 . 2018If an appellant challenges the weight of the evidence, a reviewing court will apply the weight of the evidence standard set forth in State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997), while remaining “mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 21 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Schiebelgreen2 sentences2013Jackson No. 03CA26, 2004-Ohio-5747, ¶ 21 . {¶20} Thus, appellate courts review trial court findings that a defendant voluntarily consented to a search under the weight of the evidence standard set forth in State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 , 564 N.E.2d 54 (1990). 2013Jackson No. 03CA26, 2004-Ohio-5747, ¶ 21 . {¶20} Thus, appellate courts review trial court findings that a defendant voluntarily consented to a search under the weight of the evidence standard set forth in State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 , 564 N.E.2d 54 (1990). | 1 | 4 |
State v. MacDonaldgreen2 sentences2023Hamilton No. C-180310, 2019-Ohio-3595 , ¶ 12, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). {¶53} In reviewing a weight-of-the-evidence claim, we review “ ‘the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses and determine 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 conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’ ” State v. Bailey, 1st Dist. 2023Hamilton No. C-180310, 2019-Ohio-3595, ¶ 12 , quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). {¶44} In reviewing a weight-of-the-evidence claim, we review “ ‘the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses and determine 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 conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’ ” State v. Bailey, 1st Dist. | 1 | 2 |
Cincinnati v. Twang, L.L.C.green1 sentence2024Compare State v. Rodriguez, 2024-Ohio-5832, ¶ 7 (1st Dist.), citing City of Cincinnati v. Twang, LLC, 2021-Ohio-4387, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.) (addressing the essence of the argument presented for review as sufficiency of the evidence rather than manifest weight). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stratfordgreen1 sentence2024C.C. was able to describe Simmons sexual abuse towards her including vaginal and anal penetration with his penis, ejaculation from Simmons’s penis, forcing her to watch sexually explicit material, hitting C.C. in the face with his penis, and touching C.C.’s breasts, vagina, and buttocks. {¶49} “In a weight of the evidence challenge the trier of fact is ‘best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures, and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.’” State v. Stratford, 2022-Ohio-1497, ¶ 24 (8th Dist.), citing State | 1 | 1 |
State v. Eleygreen1 sentence2024The brief states, "A criminal conviction challenged on such grounds shall stand so long as there exists sufficient evidence in the record 'which, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt'⎯that is, without any degree of uncertainty." This is a quotation from a discussion of sufficiency of the evidence in State v. Eley, 56 Ohio St.2d 169, 172 (1978), 3. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2024Compare State v. Rodriguez, 2024-Ohio-5832, ¶ 7 (1st Dist.), citing City of Cincinnati v. Twang, LLC, 2021-Ohio-4387, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.) (addressing the essence of the argument presented for review as sufficiency of the evidence rather than manifest weight). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Issagreen1 sentence2024See State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 67 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Emswiler v. Bodeygreen1 sentence2024“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.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990). “ ‘Weight is not a question of mathematics, but depends on its effect in inducing belief.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Id., quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990). {¶ 49} “This Court, in reviewing a weight of the evidence challenge, must consider the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasona | 1 | 1 |
Jawary v. Underwoodgreen1 sentence2021Cuyahoga No. 108424, 2020-Ohio-5176, ¶ 9 (relying on the weight-of-the-evidence standard in determining that inadequate damages were awarded as the justification for a new trial on damages without any evidence of the jury award being issued under the passion and prejudice analysis of Civ.R. 56(A)(4)). | 1 | 1 |
| Ohio v. Robinettegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cookgreen | 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 sentences2022Cuyahoga No. 98037, 2012-Ohio-5728, ¶ 27 . “‘The weight-of-the-evidence standard addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing belief.’” In re D.C. at ¶ 13, quoting State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , ¶ 25, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 386 -387, 678 N.E.2d 54 (1997). 2021The weight-of-the-evidence standard “addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing belief.” State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , ¶ 25, citing Thompkins at 386-387 . | 14 | 2015–2022 |
State v. Thompkins
green
2 sentences2012State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 , 1997-Ohio-52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 . {¶93} A weight-of-the-evidence challenge indicates that a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of the issue than supports the other. 2009The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Bradley at ¶ 12, citing Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus and quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307 . {¶ 37} According to State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997-Ohio-52 , the standard in reviewing a weight of the evidence challenge is a distinct legal concept both quantitatively and qualitatively different from the sufficiency standard. | 11 | 2004–2012 |
State v. Jenks
red
2 sentences2024State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶31} When considering a weight-of-the-evidence claim, we review “‘the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses and determine 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 conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’” State v. Bailey, 2015-Ohio-2997, ¶ 59 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997). {¶32} The credibility of 2023State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶22} When considering a weight-of-the-evidence claim, we review “ ‘the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses and determine 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 conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’ ” State v. Bailey, 1st Dist. | 9 | 2014–2024 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2021The court on review asks whether “ ‘after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36 , 2020-Ohio-3343 , 164 N.E.3d 316, ¶ 24 , quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, cited in State v. 2014Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d at 113 , 684 N.E.2d 668 . {¶36} Alternatively, a weight-of-the-evidence challenge requires an appellate court to review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and consider the credibility of the witnesses. | 4 | 2011–2021 |
State v. Dehass
green
2 sentences2012State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶34} In reviewing this case under the weight of the evidence standard, we find the following approach taken by the Third Appellate District in State v. Bierbaum, 3d Dist. 2012State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶34} In reviewing this case under the weight of the evidence standard, we find the following approach taken by the Third Appellate District in State v. Bierbaum, 3d Dist. | 2 | 2012–2014 |
State v. Hackett (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2026Stated differently, “[a] court abuses its discretion when a legal rule entrusts a decision to a judge's discretion and the judge's exercise of that discretion is outside the legally permissible range of choices.” State v. Hackett, 2020-Ohio-6699, ¶ 19 . {¶ 83} In challenging the trial court’s exercise of discretion in appointing the Receiver, the appellants appear to seek a stricter standard of review, asking this court to review the trial court’s decision for an error of law or based on a weight of the evidence standard. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Carter v. Carter
green
1 sentence2026“In reviewing a weight of the evidence challenge, we weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trial court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Morris
neutral
1 sentence2024Hamilton No. C-220073, 2022-Ohio-4597, ¶ 20 , quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Weaver
green
1 sentence2024An abuse of discretion requires more than a difference of opinion regarding the trial court’s decision and requires a finding that the judgment is “so profoundly and wholly violative of fact and reason that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias.” (internal quotations omitted) State v. Weaver, 2022-Ohio-4371, ¶ 24 . 13. {¶ 29} While the Wylies do not articulate the applicable standard within their assignments of error, we construe the challenges to the trial court’ | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Ford
green
1 sentence2022“Proper” is defined as “suitable or appropriate” and “reasonable” means “not extreme or excessive.” Id., quoting State v. Hauenstein, 121 Ohio App.3d 511, 516 , 700 N.E.2d 378 (3d Dist.1997). {¶35} The reasonableness of corporal punishment in each case must be evaluated in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including “the child’s age, the child’s behavior that led to the parent’s action, the child’s response to non- corporal punishment, and the location and severity of the punishment,” as well as “the parent’s state of mind while administering the discipline.” Ford at ¶ 28, quo | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Wilks (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022“To evaluate a claim that a jury verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, we review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that we must reverse the conviction and order a new trial.” State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359 , 2018-Ohio-1562 , 114 N.E.3d 1092, ¶ 168 , citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). “‘The discretionary power to grant a 2022“To evaluate a claim that a jury verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, we review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that we must reverse the conviction and order a new trial.” State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359 , 2018-Ohio-1562 , 114 N.E.3d 1092, ¶ 168 , citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). “‘The discretionary power to grant a | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Hauenstein
green
2 sentences2022“Proper” is defined as “suitable or appropriate” and “reasonable” means “not extreme or excessive.” Id., quoting State v. Hauenstein, 121 Ohio App.3d 511, 516 , 700 N.E.2d 378 (3d Dist.1997). {¶35} The reasonableness of corporal punishment in each case must be evaluated in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including “the child’s age, the child’s behavior that led to the parent’s action, the child’s response to non- corporal punishment, and the location and severity of the punishment,” as well as “the parent’s state of mind while administering the discipline.” Ford at ¶ 28, quo 2022“Proper” is defined as “suitable or appropriate” and “reasonable” means “not extreme or excessive.” Id., quoting State v. Hauenstein, 121 Ohio App.3d 511, 516 , 700 N.E.2d 378 (3d Dist.1997). {¶35} The reasonableness of corporal punishment in each case must be evaluated in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including “the child’s age, the child’s behavior that led to the parent’s action, the child’s response to non- corporal punishment, and the location and severity of the punishment,” as well as “the parent’s state of mind while administering the discipline.” Ford at ¶ 28, quo | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Byrd
green
1 sentence2022Cuyahoga No. 98037, 2012-Ohio-5728, ¶ 27 . “‘The weight-of-the-evidence standard addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing belief.’” In re D.C. at ¶ 13, quoting State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , ¶ 25, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 386 -387, 678 N.E.2d 54 (1997). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2021The court on review asks whether “ ‘after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36 , 2020-Ohio-3343 , 164 N.E.3d 316, ¶ 24 , quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, cited in State v. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. McFarland (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2021The court on review asks whether “ ‘after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36 , 2020-Ohio-3343 , 164 N.E.3d 316, ¶ 24 , quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, cited in State v. 2021The court on review asks whether “ ‘after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36 , 2020-Ohio-3343 , 164 N.E.3d 316, ¶ 24 , quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, cited in State v. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2020Summit No. 27552, 2017-Ohio-1186 , ¶ 19. 2020Summit No. 27552, 2017-Ohio-1186, ¶ 19 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Lang green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Amerifirst Savings Bank of Xenia v. Krug green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Rudd green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Barnes green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Thompson (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Goldwire, Unpublished Decision (11-14-2003) green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. McKnight green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Jenkins v. Jenkins green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Fry, Unpublished Decision (10-26-2004) green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Jackson v. Virginia red | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Saluppo v. Saluppo, Unpublished Decision (5-31-2006) green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Adrian green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Gerijo, Inc. v. City of Fairfield green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Davis green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Schneckloth v. Bustamonte green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Robinette green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Eppinger green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Gibbs green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Wellman Engineering Co. v. Calderon Automation, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Stepp green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Rohde v. Farmer green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.