Mannion v. Sandel

73 Citing cases

  1. Carter v. R B Pizza Co., Inc.

    2008 Ohio 1530 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)

    The trial court's decision granting a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Mannion v. Sandel (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 318, 322. This standard only allows appellate reversal of the grant of a new trial if the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or unconscionably.

  2. Zerbe v. Zerve

    2005 Ohio 1180 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)

    This rule does not establish a stringent requirement, and a reviewing court must review each case on an individual basis. Mannion v. Sandel, 91 Ohio St.3d 318, 322, 2001-Ohio-47, 744 N.E.2d 759. In this case, the court stated the basis for its decision in sufficient detail to allow this court to conduct a meaningful appellate review, which is the reason for the specification requirement.

  3. Triad Hunter, LLC v. Eagle Natrium, LLC

    2024 Ohio 5188 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

    {¶58} A trial court's decision to overrule a motion for a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Mannion v. Sandel, 91 Ohio St.3d 318, 321 (2001). Abuse of discretion implies that the court's attitude was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.

  4. Woodburn v. Motorist Mut. Ins. Grp.

    2015 Ohio 2885 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)

    However, in reviewing the order of the trial court, sufficiently detailed reasoning specified in writing is necessary to allow the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial. Mannion v. Sandel, 91 Ohio St.3d 318, 322, 2001-Ohio-47, 744 N.E.2d 759. In this case, the trial court concluded that because the case involved admitted negligence, the failure of the jury to award damages was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

  5. Technical Construction Specialties v. Cooper

    2011 Ohio 5252 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)

    This court does not weigh the evidence in reviewing a decision on a motion for a new trial. Mannion v. Sandel, 91 Ohio St.3d 318, 2001-Ohio-47, 744 N.E.2d 759. {¶ 17} The standard of review for a JNOV motion is the same as that for a directed verdict.

  6. Striff v. Luke Medical Practitioners

    2010 Ohio 6261 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)

    The review of a trial court's decision as to whether or not to set aside a jury verdict as being against the weight of the evidence is subject to the same abuse-of-discretion standard as for other grounds for a new trial; an appellate court does not directly view whether the decision was against the weight of the evidence. Mannion v. Sandel, 91 Ohio St.3d 318, 322, 2001-Ohio-47, 744 N.E.2d 759; Walker v. Summa Health Sys., 9th Dist. No. 23727, 2008-Ohio-1465, ¶ 11. A trial court must not interfere with a verdict unless it is clear that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result. Bland v. Graves (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 644, 651, 620 N.E.2d 920.

  7. Green v. Bailey

    2008 Ohio 3569 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)

    {¶ 14} The court must articulate the reasons for granting a motion for a new trial on the basis that the verdict is not sustained by the weight of the evidence, and these reasons cannot be "simply couched in the form of conclusions or statements of ultimate fact."Antal v. Olde Worlde Products, Inc. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 144, 459 N.E.2d 223, syllabus; Mannion v. Sandel, 91 Ohio St.3d 318, 2001-Ohio-47, 744 N.E.2d 759.Antal at 147.

  8. Reicosky v. McCammon

    2008 Ohio 2775 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)

    {¶ 90} A trial court has discretion when ruling on a motion for a new trial, and a reviewing court should not disturb its decision absent an abuse of discretion. Mannion v. Sandel (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 318, 321, 2001-Ohio-47, 744 N.E.2d 759. "The term `abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable."

  9. Watkins v. Roetzel

    2008 Ohio 1881 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)

    Rather, this Court must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by determining that the jury's award was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mannion v. Sandel, 91 Ohio St. 3d 318, 321 (2001). {¶ 13} This Court must first determine whether the trial court's order denying Ms. Watkins's motion for new trial is specific enough to permit a determination of whether it abused its discretion.

  10. State v. Woodson

    2008 Ohio 669 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)

    {¶ 68} A trial court has discretion when ruling on a motion for a new trial, and a reviewing court should not disturb its decision absent an abuse of discretion. Mannion v. Sandel (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 318, 321, 2001-Ohio-47, 744 N.E.2d 759. "The term `abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable."