substantive part claim (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

substantive part claim in Ohio

6 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2015 0 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Broome v. Mordecaigreen
· 1921 · cited in 5 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2008–2013
2 sentences

2013Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 521 U.S. 121 , 117 S.Ct. 195 at n. 3 (1997). {¶29} In assessing whether a party has met its burden of proof, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he degree of proof required is determined by the impression which the testimony of the witnesses makes upon the trier of facts, and the character of the testimony itself.

2012Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 521 U.S. 121 , 117 S.Ct. 195 , 138 L.Ed.2d 138 , at n. 3(1997). {¶44} In assessing whether a party has met its burden of proof, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he degree of proof required is determined by the impression which the testimony of the witnesses makes upon the trier of facts, and the character of the testimony itself.

45

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo green
scotus · 1997
2 sentences

2015Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 521 U.S. 121 (1997). {¶ 31} "In assessing whether a party has met its burden of proof, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated, '[t]he degree of proof required is determined by the impression which the testimony of the witnesses makes upon the trier of facts, and the character of the testimony itself.

2013Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 521 U.S. 121 , 117 S.Ct. 195 at n. 3 (1997). {¶29} In assessing whether a party has met its burden of proof, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he degree of proof required is determined by the impression which the testimony of the witnesses makes upon the trier of facts, and the character of the testimony itself.

62008–2015
Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal. green
scotus · 1993
1 sentence

2015"In other words, the preponderance standard goes to how convincing the evidence in favor of a fact must be in comparison with the evidence against it before that fact may be found, but does not determine what facts must be proven as a substantive part of a claim or defense." Id., citing Metro.

12015–2015

Where else courts name it

OH 6 (2008–2015) TN 2 (2000–2000)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check