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.
44 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Thompkinsred2 sentences2013No. 13-97-09, *2 (Sept. 17, 1997). {¶36} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he 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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1981), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶37} On the other hand, in determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must examine the entire record, “‘[weigh] the evidence and all reasonable inferences, c 2013No. 13-97-09, *2 (Sept. 17, 1997). {¶36} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he 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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1981), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶37} On the other hand, in determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must examine the entire record, “‘[weigh] the evidence and all reasonable inferences, c | 1 | 3 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences2013No. 13-97-09, *2 (Sept. 17, 1997). {¶36} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he 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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1981), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶37} On the other hand, in determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must examine the entire record, “‘[weigh] the evidence and all reasonable inferences, c 2013No. 13-97-09, *2 (Sept. 17, 1997). {¶36} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he 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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1981), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶37} On the other hand, in determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must examine the entire record, “‘[weigh] the evidence and all reasonable inferences, c | 1 | 3 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences2020The Bridgeman standard is essentially identical to the standard for "sufficiency of the evidence" announced in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus (1991), and "[t]he 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." Id. (following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). {¶ 11} Here, the essential elements of sexual battery include: (1) "sexual conduct with another," which is defined in R.C. 2 2020The Bridgeman standard is essentially identical to the standard for "sufficiency of the evidence" announced in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus (1991), and "[t]he 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." Id. (following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). {¶ 11} Here, the essential elements of sexual battery include: (1) "sexual conduct with another," which is defined in R.C. 2 | 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. Jenks
red
2 sentences2020The Bridgeman standard is essentially identical to the standard for "sufficiency of the evidence" announced in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus (1991), and "[t]he 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." Id. (following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). {¶ 11} Here, the essential elements of sexual battery include: (1) "sexual conduct with another," which is defined in R.C. 2 2020The Bridgeman standard is essentially identical to the standard for "sufficiency of the evidence" announced in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus (1991), and "[t]he 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." Id. (following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). {¶ 11} Here, the essential elements of sexual battery include: (1) "sexual conduct with another," which is defined in R.C. 2 | 38 | 2002–2020 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2009The Bridgeman standard must be viewed in light of the sufficiency of evidence test set forth in State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , at paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds in State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 . 2009The Bridgeman standard must be viewed in light of the sufficiency of evidence test set forth in State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , at paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds in State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 . | 7 | 2005–2011 |
State v. Hansen
green
2 sentences2015Seneca No. 13-12-42, 2013-Ohio-1735, ¶ 35 , quoting State v. Foster, 3d Dist. 2015Seneca No. 13-12-42, 2013-Ohio-1735, ¶ 35 , quoting State v. Foster, 3d Dist. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
State v. Knepley
neutral
2 sentences2013No. 7-11-02, 2012-Ohio-406, ¶ 23 , quoting State v. Foster, 3d Dist. 2013No. 7-11-02, 2012-Ohio-406, ¶ 23 , quoting State v. Foster, 3d Dist. | 2 | 2012–2013 |
State v. Bridgeman
green
2 sentences2012R. 29(A), a court shall not order an entry of judgment of acquittal if the evidence is such that reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (1978), syllabus. {¶10} This court has previously found that the Bridgeman standard “must be viewed in light of the sufficiency of evidence test * * *.” State v. Foster, 3d Dist. 2012R. 29(A), a court shall not order an entry of judgment of acquittal if the evidence is such that reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (1978), syllabus. {¶10} This court has previously found that the Bridgeman standard “must be viewed in light of the sufficiency of evidence test * * *.” State v. Foster, 3d Dist. | 2 | 2008–2012 |
State v. Edwards, Unpublished Decision (8-2-2004)
green
2 sentences2009State v. Edwards , 3d Dist. *Page 11 No. 9-03-63, 2004-Ohio-4015 . 2009State v. Edwards , 3d Dist. *Page 11 No. 9-03-63, 2004-Ohio-4015 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State Ex Rel. Connole v. Cleveland Board of Education
neutral
2 sentences2004Cannole v. Cleveland Board of Education (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 43 , 621 N.E.2d 850 . {¶ 3} Despite the obvious procedural irregularities of this petition, a review of the record, including a review of the docket, indicates that the lower court has not ruled on Bridgeman's motion. 2004Cannole v. Cleveland Board of Education (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 43 , 621 N.E.2d 850 . {¶ 3} Despite the obvious procedural irregularities of this petition, a review of the record, including a review of the docket, indicates that the lower court has not ruled on Bridgeman's motion. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.