A motion for a new trial is not necessary as a prerequisite to obtain appellate review of the sufficiency or weight of the evidence submitted to the trial court where such evidence to be considered appears as a part of the record filed in the appellate court.
This section applies to any action or proceeding pending in the courts on October 27, 1949.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1955–2024 · leading case: Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517.
Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517. · cites it 2דMoms required an appellate court to determine only whether there is sufficient evidence to support a civil jury verdict, then there would never be any review of manifest weight of the evidence in these cases.”
Gevedon v. Ivey, 876 N.E.2d 604 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2007). “9(B); R.C. 2321.01; R.C. 2321.18; R.C. 2945.831.”
Housh v. Peth, 135 N.E.2d 440 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 2דSection 2321.01, Revised Code, in part provides: “A motion for a new trial is not necessary as a prerequisite to obtain appellate review of the sufficiency or weight of the evidence submitted to the trial court where such evidence to be considered appears as a part of the record…”
Reed v. Key-Chrysler Plymouth, 708 N.E.2d 1021 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1998). “9(B); R.C. 2321.01; R.C. 2321.18; R.C. 2945.831.”
Baon v. Fairview Hosp., 2019-Ohio-3371. “Darrell argues that he has a meritorious claim because his complaint set forth a cognizable claim for wrongful death under R.C. 2321.01. He also argues that while the complaint was defective “to the extent that it purported to assert claims on behalf of anyone else” besides…”
Best Fin. Solutions, L.L.C. v. Tifton Custom Parking, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-4458. “See R.C. 2321.01; see also Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 29 (“Nothing in the rules or statutes requires a party to have made a particular motion before seeking appellate review of a jury verdict on the weight of the evidence.”
Douglas v. Broughton, 2014-Ohio-808. “12(C); and R.C. 2321.01, 2321.18, and 2945.831. {¶ 17} This court recently addressed the manifest weight standard of review in civil cases.”
Rowland v. Samshall, 212 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964). · cites it 2דSection 2321.01, Revised Code. It is an issue to be determined upon the weight of the evidence and is, under that section, appealable without a motion for a new trial having been made.”
Spradlin v. City of Canton, 171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 531 (Ohio 1961). · cites it 8ד17, Revised Code, and the 1945 enactment (121 Ohio Laws, 369) and the 1949 amendment (123 Ohio Laws, 814) of Section 11576-1, General Code, now Section 2321.01, Revised Code,, changed the law.”
Ramos v. Long, 4 Ohio App. Unrep. 473 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1990). · cites it 4דAt oral argument appellants argued vigorously that R.C. 2321.01 created an exception to the Brogan, supra, requirement.”
Pahoundis Fam. Grp., Ltd. v. Schonauer, 2019-Ohio-5303. “2d 517 , ¶ 28, quoting in part R.C. 2321.01. The record in this case contains the trial transcript and exhibits for our review.”
Coalton v. Atkins, 7 Ohio App. Unrep. 105 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1990). “11576-1 now appears in R.C. 2321.01 and reads as follows: "A motion for a new trial is not necessary as a prerequisite to obtain appellate review of the sufficiency or weight of the evidence submitted to the trial court where such evidence to be considered appeals as a part of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.