stating that an abuse of discretion may not be found simply because the appellate court does not find the trial court’s “reasoning process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning processes that would support a contrary result”
How later courts described this case
- stating that an abuse of discretion may not be found simply because the appellate court does not find the trial court’s “reasoning process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning processes that would support a contrary result”
- stating that an “appellate court is not permitted to find an abuse of discretion merely because it would have arrived at a different result if it had reviewed the matter de novo”
- holding that a decision constitutes an abuse of discretion “if there is no sound reasoning process that would support” it
- noting that most -9- abuses of discretion occur when a decision is unreasonable, and that “[a] decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wright, J.,
dissenting. I agree *163 with the bulk of the reasoning contained in the majority opinion, but not the result. Using the abuse-of-discretion test as to the actions of Columbus City Council, there is no way a trial court could conclude that summary judgment would not be justified on the basis of the record before us. Thus, I think a remand is nothing more than a useless exercise.