State v. Clingerman

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Clingerman

115 Ohio St. 3d 374

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 11, 2007

DocketNo. 2007-1053

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 Ohio St. 3d 374 (State v. Clingerman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Clingerman, 115 Ohio St. 3d 374 (Ohio 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause is before the court upon the certification of a conflict by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Appellate District. The court determines that the conflict has been resolved by our recent decision in State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d 1264.

{¶ 2} Because the court of appeals applied a criminal manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of State v. Wilson, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of the civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard consistent with State v. Wilson.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Lanzinger, J., concurs in judgment only. O’Connor, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

{¶ 1} This cause is before the court upon the certification of a conflict by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Appellate District. The court determines that the conflict has been resolved by our recent decision in State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d 1264.

{¶ 2} Because the court of appeals applied a criminal manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of State v. Wilson, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of the civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard consistent with State v. Wilson.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Lanzinger, J., concurs in judgment only. O’Connor, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 Ohio St. 3d 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-clingerman-ohio-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack