46 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
O'Brien v. Angleygreen2 sentences2025The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. {¶ 30} Under Civ.R. 61, in order for this Court to find that an error is harmless, it must weigh the prejudicial effect of the error and "determine that, if th[e] error[ ] had not occurred, the . . . trier of the facts would probably have made the same decision." In re Z.H., 2022-Ohio-184, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.), citing O'Brien v. Angley, 63 Ohio St.2d 159, 164-165 (1980), internal citation omitted. 2024The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. {¶92} “An improper evidentiary ruling constitutes reversible error only when the error affects the substantial rights of the adverse party or the ruling is inconsistent with substantial justice.” Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 106 Ohio St.3d 237 , 2005- Ohio-4787, 834 N.E.2d 323, ¶ 35 . 25 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶93} To determine whether an erroneous ruling affected a party’s substantial rights, we must weigh the prejudicial | 3 | 5 |
Fada v. Information Systems & Networks Corp.green2 sentences2020The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” See also R.C. 2309.59 (“the [reviewing] court shall disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party”). {¶32} “The critical inquiry * * * is whether the trial court's erroneous statement materially prejudiced the appellants.” Fada v. Information Sys. & Networks Corp., 98 Ohio App.3d 785, 792 (2d Dist.1994). 2018The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” See also R.C. 2309.59 (“the [reviewing] court shall disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party”). {¶16} “The critical inquiry * * * is whether the trial court’s erroneous statement materially prejudiced the appellants.” Fada v. Information Sys. & Networks Corp., 98 Ohio App.3d 785, 792 (2d Dist.1994). | 3 | 5 |
Cappara v. Schibleygreen2 sentences2013“Generally, in order to find that substantial justice has been done to an appellant so as to prevent reversal of a judgment for errors occurring at the trial, the reviewing court must not only weigh the prejudicial effect of those errors but also -13- Case No. 9-12-60 determine that, if those errors had not occurred, the jury or other trier of the facts would probably have made the same decision.” Cappara v. Schibley, 85 Ohio St.3d 403, 408 (1999), quoting Hallworth v. Republic Steel Corp., 153 Ohio St. 349 (1950), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶22} Had the trial court not erred, the trial 2012The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. 3 Though the record does not contain the exact date on which the petition was denied, we can reasonably assume, based on timing requirements set forth in R.C. 2903.214, which governs the issuance of civil protection orders, that it was denied within weeks of it being filed. -10- Case No. 9-11-41 “Generally, in order to find that substantial justice has been done to an appellant so as to prevent reversal of a judgment for errors occurring a | 2 | 3 |
Hallworth v. Republic Steel Corp.green2 sentences2024The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. {¶92} “An improper evidentiary ruling constitutes reversible error only when the error affects the substantial rights of the adverse party or the ruling is inconsistent with substantial justice.” Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 106 Ohio St.3d 237 , 2005- Ohio-4787, 834 N.E.2d 323, ¶ 35 . 25 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶93} To determine whether an erroneous ruling affected a party’s substantial rights, we must weigh the prejudicial 2024The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. {¶92} “An improper evidentiary ruling constitutes reversible error only when the error affects the substantial rights of the adverse party or the ruling is inconsistent with substantial justice.” Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 106 Ohio St.3d 237 , 2005- Ohio-4787, 834 N.E.2d 323, ¶ 35 . 25 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶93} To determine whether an erroneous ruling affected a party’s substantial rights, we must weigh the prejudicial | 1 | 8 |
Luri v. Republic Servs., Inc.green2 sentences2026As Civ.R. 61 states, “[N]o error or defect in any ruling or order . . . is ground . . . for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice.” The rule further provides, “The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” See R.C. 2309.59 (“In every stage of an action, the court shall disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which does not affect the substant 2017See Civ.R. 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); Luri v. Republic Servs., 2014-Ohio-3817 , 18 11 “When a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted presents matters outside the pleading and such matters are not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as a motion for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56. * * * All parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all materials made pertinent to su | 1 | 2 |
Spellman v. Kirchnergreen1 sentence2026PAGE 7 OF 20 Case No. 2025-L-023 {¶26} This Court has explained that “[w]hen avoidance of the error would not have changed the outcome of the proceedings, then the error neither materially prejudices the complaining party nor affects a substantial right of the complaining party.” Spellman v. Kirchner, 2020-Ohio-3240, ¶ 28 (11th Dist.). {¶27} Appellant contends that the inaccurate statement was a “material factual error” that was “fundamental to the grant of summary judgment.” According to Appellant, the statement “circumvents consideration of the South Shore’s [sic] duty of inspection and repa | 1 | 1 |
Vay v. Ford Motor, Unpublished Decision (7-21-2005)green1 sentence2025“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Vay v. Ford Motor Co., 2005-Ohio-3710, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
In re Z.H.green1 sentence2025The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. {¶ 30} Under Civ.R. 61, in order for this Court to find that an error is harmless, it must weigh the prejudicial effect of the error and "determine that, if th[e] error[ ] had not occurred, the . . . trier of the facts would probably have made the same decision." In re Z.H., 2022-Ohio-184, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.), citing O'Brien v. Angley, 63 Ohio St.2d 159, 164-165 (1980), internal citation omitted. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wombold, Unpublished Decision (2-11-2005)green1 sentence2025State v. Wombold, 2005-Ohio-601, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.) (“even if [the memorandum] was not served upon Wombold, Wombold has not demonstrated any resulting prejudice”); Grenga v. Smith, 2002-Ohio-1179 , ¶ 61 (11th Dist.) (“any error which may have occurred from the failure to serve the remaining appellees with Eugene Smith’s motion for summary judgment was harmless because appellants have not shown that they suffered prejudice as a result of these events”). | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of McCallum, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2007)green1 sentence2024Tuscarawas No. 2006AP070042, 2007-Ohio-995, ¶ 17 [application of harmless error pursuant to Civ.R. 61 to custody determination]. {¶34} Under Civ.R. 61, for this Court to find that an error is harmless, it must weigh the prejudicial effect of the error and “determine that, if th[e] error[ ] had not occurred, the * * * trier of the facts would probably have made the same decision.” In re Z.H., 9th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
DeGrant v. DeGrantgreen2 sentences2023“In reviewing whether a substantial right of a party has been affected, the reviewing court must decide whether the trier of fact would have reached the same decision had the error not occurred.” (Citation omitted.) Degrant v. Degrant, 2020-Ohio-70 , 151 N.E.3d 61, ¶ 28 (11th Dist.). {¶33} The magistrate explicitly found that Anitra and C.H. lacked credibility and that Anitra coached his testimony. 2023“In reviewing whether a substantial right of a party has been affected, the reviewing court must decide whether the trier of fact would have reached the same decision had the error not occurred.” (Citation omitted.) Degrant v. Degrant, 2020-Ohio-70 , 151 N.E.3d 61, ¶ 28 (11th Dist.). {¶33} The magistrate explicitly found that Anitra and C.H. lacked credibility and that Anitra coached his testimony. | 1 | 1 |
Agricultural Ins. v. Constantinegreen1 sentence2020Co. v. Constantine, 144 Ohio St. 275, 284 (1944). | 1 | 1 |
In re A.H.green1 sentence2014Lorain No. 13CA010454, 2014-Ohio-552, ¶9 (“Because the “12 of 22” finding was sufficient to support the first prong of the permanent custody test, any error in the trial court’s alternate finding under R.C. 2151.414(E) would not constitute reversible error because it did not result in any prejudice to Father.”). {¶ 39} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we overrule appellant’s second assignment of error. | 1 | 1 |
EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2013Corp. v. Jenkins, 164 Ohio App.3d 240 , 2005-Ohio-5799, ¶ 12 (10th Dist.) (finding that the failure of the trial court to -8- Case No. 9-12-56 convert Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was harmless “because both parties had the opportunity to present evidence in support of their respective positions”). 2013Corp. v. Jenkins, 164 Ohio App.3d 240 , 2005-Ohio-5799, ¶ 12 (10th Dist.) (finding that the failure of the trial court to -8- Case No. 9-12-56 convert Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was harmless “because both parties had the opportunity to present evidence in support of their respective positions”). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. City of Cincinnati, Unpublished Decision (7-14-2006)green1 sentence2006See, e.g., Thomas v. Cincinnati, Hamilton App. No. C-050643, 2006-Ohio-3598 , 2006 WL 1934402 at *2 ("[E]ven if fees were not appropriate under R.C. 2323.51 because the motion was not timely filed, the trial court also based the award of fees on a common-law bad-faith theory. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Spirkogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beard v. Meridia Huron Hospital
green
2 sentences2024The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. {¶92} “An improper evidentiary ruling constitutes reversible error only when the error affects the substantial rights of the adverse party or the ruling is inconsistent with substantial justice.” Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 106 Ohio St.3d 237 , 2005- Ohio-4787, 834 N.E.2d 323, ¶ 35 . 25 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶93} To determine whether an erroneous ruling affected a party’s substantial rights, we must weigh the prejudicial 2024The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. {¶92} “An improper evidentiary ruling constitutes reversible error only when the error affects the substantial rights of the adverse party or the ruling is inconsistent with substantial justice.” Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 106 Ohio St.3d 237 , 2005- Ohio-4787, 834 N.E.2d 323, ¶ 35 . 25 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶93} To determine whether an erroneous ruling affected a party’s substantial rights, we must weigh the prejudicial | 2 | 2014–2024 |
Smith v. Flesher
green
2 sentences2021The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” {¶47} According to the Supreme Court of Ohio, “[i]t is an elementary proposition of law that an appellant, in order to secure reversal of a judgment against him, must not only show some error but must also show that that error was prejudicial to him.” Smith v. Flesher, 12 Ohio St.2d 107, 110 , 233 N.E.2d 137 (1967). 2021The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” {¶47} According to the Supreme Court of Ohio, “[i]t is an elementary proposition of law that an appellant, in order to secure reversal of a judgment against him, must not only show some error but must also show that that error was prejudicial to him.” Smith v. Flesher, 12 Ohio St.2d 107, 110 , 233 N.E.2d 137 (1967). | 2 | 1974–2021 |
Berger v. Berger
green
2 sentences2020“In reviewing whether a substantial right of a party has been affected, the reviewing court must decide whether the trier of fact would have reached the same decision had the error not occurred.” Berger v. Berger, 2015-Ohio-5519 , 57 N.E.3d 166 , ¶ 9 (11th Dist.). {¶29} When making a determination regarding the allocation of parental rights and 9 responsibilities, “the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, * * * [t]he child’s interaction and interrelationship with the child’s parents, * * * [t]he child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community [and] * * * [t]he me 2018The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties." In determining whether a substantial right of a party has been affected, "the reviewing court must decide whether the trier of fact would have reached the same decision had the error not occurred." Berger v. Berger , 2015-Ohio-5519 , 57 N.E.3d 166 , ¶ 9 (11th Dist.), citing Petti v. Perna , 86 Ohio App.3d 508 , 514, 621 N.E.2d 580 (3d Dist.1993). {¶ 78} Dr. Obayuwana maintains that the jury's verdict hinged on his credibility and whether | 2 | 2018–2020 |
Petti v. Perna
green
2 sentences2018The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties." In determining whether a substantial right of a party has been affected, "the reviewing court must decide whether the trier of fact would have reached the same decision had the error not occurred." Berger v. Berger , 2015-Ohio-5519 , 57 N.E.3d 166 , ¶ 9 (11th Dist.), citing Petti v. Perna , 86 Ohio App.3d 508 , 514, 621 N.E.2d 580 (3d Dist.1993). {¶ 78} Dr. Obayuwana maintains that the jury's verdict hinged on his credibility and whether 2018The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties." In determining whether a substantial right of a party has been affected, "the reviewing court must decide whether the trier of fact would have reached the same decision had the error not occurred." Berger v. Berger , 2015-Ohio-5519 , 57 N.E.3d 166 , ¶ 9 (11th Dist.), citing Petti v. Perna , 86 Ohio App.3d 508 , 514, 621 N.E.2d 580 (3d Dist.1993). {¶ 78} Dr. Obayuwana maintains that the jury's verdict hinged on his credibility and whether | 2 | 2015–2018 |
Russell v. Gallia County Local School Board
neutral
2 sentences2015School Bd., 80 Ohio App.3d 797, 800 , 610 N.E.2d 1130 (4th Dist. 1992), citing Civ.R. 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties”). 2015School Bd., 80 Ohio App.3d 797, 800 , 610 N.E.2d 1130 (4th Dist. 1992), citing Civ.R. 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties”). | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Yehudah v. Gallagher
green
1 sentence2025“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Id. {¶19} The failure of service of a motion or other filing has been found harmless when the complaining party fails to demonstrate prejudice resulting therefrom. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hayward v. Summa Health System/Akron City Hospital
green
2 sentences2021Washington No. 13CA49, 2015-Ohio-2510 , ¶ 35, quoting Hayward v. Summa Health Sys./Akron City Hosp., 139 Ohio St.3d 238 , 2014-Ohio-1913 , 11 N.E.3d 243, ¶ 25 . {¶16} Mother cannot show that the trial court probably would not have found Lu.B. dependent if it had not taken judicial notice of its May 30, 2019 entry. 2021Washington No. 13CA49, 2015-Ohio-2510 , ¶ 35, quoting Hayward v. Summa Health Sys./Akron City Hosp., 139 Ohio St.3d 238 , 2014-Ohio-1913 , 11 N.E.3d 243, ¶ 25 . {¶16} Mother cannot show that the trial court probably would not have found Lu.B. dependent if it had not taken judicial notice of its May 30, 2019 entry. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Kontrick v. Ryan
green
2 sentences2020Civ.R. 61 provides that “[t]he court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” The failure to timely serve the attorney general is an error, but it had no impact on the outcome of the proceeding and was therefore harmless error. 12 January Term, 2020 Conclusion {¶ 31} As the Supreme Court of the United States has explained, “Clarity would be facilitated if courts and litigants used the label ‘jurisdictional’ not for claim-processing rules [i.e., those guiding the court’s exercise of jurisd 2020Civ.R. 61 provides that “[t]he court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” The failure to timely serve the attorney general is an error, but it had no impact on the outcome of the proceeding and was therefore harmless error. 12 January Term, 2020 Conclusion {¶ 31} As the Supreme Court of the United States has explained, “Clarity would be facilitated if courts and litigants used the label ‘jurisdictional’ not for claim-processing rules [i.e., those guiding the court’s exercise of jurisd | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Cicco v. Stockmaster
green
2 sentences2020Civ.R. 61 provides that “[t]he court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” The failure to timely serve the attorney general is an error, but it had no impact on the outcome of the proceeding and was therefore harmless error. 12 January Term, 2020 Conclusion {¶ 31} As the Supreme Court of the United States has explained, “Clarity would be facilitated if courts and litigants used the label ‘jurisdictional’ not for claim-processing rules [i.e., those guiding the court’s exercise of jurisd 2020Civ.R. 61 provides that “[t]he court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” The failure to timely serve the attorney general is an error, but it had no impact on the outcome of the proceeding and was therefore harmless error. 12 January Term, 2020 Conclusion {¶ 31} As the Supreme Court of the United States has explained, “Clarity would be facilitated if courts and litigants used the label ‘jurisdictional’ not for claim-processing rules [i.e., those guiding the court’s exercise of jurisd | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Banford v. Aldrich Chem. Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Co. Inc., 126 Ohio St.3d 210 , 2010- Ohio-2470, ¶38; see Civ.R. 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties”). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Pirock v. Crain
green
1 sentence2020Pirock, 2020-Ohio-869, at ¶ 95 ; Cobb, 2015-Ohio- 2604, at ¶ 32-35; Civ.R. 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mayer v. Bristow
green
1 sentence2017Pursuant to Civ.R. 61, “no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice.” Moreover, “[t]he court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Nosal v. Szabo, Unpublished Decision (8-5-2004)
green
1 sentence2014"The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties." Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Makranczy v. Gelfand
green
2 sentences2014(Emphasis added.) That provision is consistent with Civ.R. 61: “The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” {¶ 25} In ascertaining whether prejudicial error exists, the court is “bound by the disclosures of the record.” Makranczy v. Gelfand, 109 Ohio St. 325, 329 , 142 N.E. 688 (1924). 2014(Emphasis added.) That provision is consistent with Civ.R. 61: “The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” {¶ 25} In ascertaining whether prejudicial error exists, the court is “bound by the disclosures of the record.” Makranczy v. Gelfand, 109 Ohio St. 325, 329 , 142 N.E. 688 (1924). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Morgan v. Cole
neutral
2 sentences2011The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” (Emphasis added.) {¶ 28} In commenting on Civ.R. 59(9), the authors of Baldwin’s Ohio Civil Practice write: {¶ 29} “The only time that error is grounds for the granting of a new trial is when the error is prejudicial to the moving party in a substantial way. * * * ‘In order for a party to secure relief from a judgment by way of new trial, he must not only show some error but must also show that such error was prejudicial.’ * * *” {¶ 30} B 2011The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” (Emphasis added.) {¶ 28} In commenting on Civ.R. 59(9), the authors of Baldwin’s Ohio Civil Practice write: {¶ 29} “The only time that error is grounds for the granting of a new trial is when the error is prejudicial to the moving party in a substantial way. * * * ‘In order for a party to secure relief from a judgment by way of new trial, he must not only show some error but must also show that such error was prejudicial.’ * * *” {¶ 30} B | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Meyers v. Hot Bagels Factory, Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Barrette v. Lopez green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. McGriff green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Biddle v. Warren General Hospital green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Varghese v. Royal Maccabees Life Insurance neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Nilavar v. Osborn green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| In Re Brown green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Ferrebee v. Boggs green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.