green
Positive treatment
Issue: character testOH ↗
Issue: saving clauseOH ↗
Issue: informed consent claimOH ↗
Issue: res ipsa loquitur doctrineOH ↗
6.9 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Honda
Co., 69 Ohio St.3d 611 , 613–14, 635 N.E.2d 310, 313 (1994), citing Ragone v. -4- Case No. 8-23-17 Vitali & Beltrami, Jr., Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 161 , 327 N.E.2d 645 (1975) paragraph one of the syllabus.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clinton Physical Therapy Services, P.c. Vs. John Deere Health Care, Inc. And John Deere Health Plan, Inc., F/k/a Heritage National Health Plan, Inc.
Ry., 635 N.E.2d 310, 313 (Ohio 1994) (“The purpose of an interrogatory is to ‘test the jury’s thinking in resolving an 12 ultimate issue so as not to conflict with its verdict.’ ” (Citation omitted.)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clinton Physical Therapy Services, P.C. v. John Deere Health Care, Inc.
Ry., 69 Ohio St.3d 611 , 635 N.E.2d 310, 313 (1994) (“The purpose of an interrogatory is to ‘test the jury’s thinking in resolving an ultimate issue so as not to conflict with its verdict.’ ” (Citation omitted.)).
cited
Cited "see"
CSAHA/UHHS-Canton, Inc. v. Aultman Health Found.
See Freeman v. Norfolk & Western Ry., 69 Ohio St.3d 611, 613 , 635 N.E.2d 310 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
York v. Mayfield Neurological Institute, Inc.
See Freeman, 69 Ohio St.3d at 614 , 635 N.E.2d at 313-314 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Depew
v.
Ogella
v.
Ogella
No. 94-742.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Jul 27, 1994.
Layboume, Smith, Gore & Goldsmith, A. Russell Smith, Robert B. Layboume and Joy S. Wagner, for appellants., Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs Co., L.P.A., and David W. Hilkert, for appellee.
Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Lead Opinion
The motion to certify the record is allowed, the judgment on appeal is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court on authority of Sorrell v. Thevenir (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 415, 633 N.E.2d 504.
AM. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., concurs separately. Wright, J., dissents.Concurrence
Moyer, C.J.,
concurring separately. I concur separately in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As my dissent in Sorrell v. Thevenir (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 415, 633 N.E.2d 504, stated, I do not agree with the law announced in the majority decision. Nevertheless, it is the law on the issue in the above-styled case. As I believe all parties should receive equal application of the law announced by this court, and only for that reason, I concur in the judgment entry.