Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1966–2000 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Allen
green
2 sentences2000State v. Allen (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 53 , 55 . 1999State v. Allen (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 53 , 55 . | 2 | 1999–2000 |
Bahm v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Rd. Co.
green
2 sentences1967Co., 6 Ohio St. 2d 192 , the Supreme Court of Ohio said: “Use of the phrase, ‘in the slightest degree,’ or the phrase, ‘in any degree,’ in connection with contributory negligence in a charge to a jury constitutes prejudicial error whether the phrase pertains to the issue of proximate cause or to the issue of negligence itself. * * *” The phrase “to some extent” relates to the phrase “the negligence of each proximately contributed. ’ ’ The word ‘ ‘ some ’ ’ is defined in "Webster’s Third New International Dictionary as “3. 1966Bahm, was guilty of negligence which directly and proximately contributed in any degree to bring about the accident and injuries of which plaintiff complains, there can be no recovery for this plaintiff * # *” (Emphasis added.) The court held in the syllabus: “Use of the phrase, ‘in the slightest degree,’ or the phrase, ‘in any degree,’ in connection with contributory negligence in a charge to a jury constitutes prejudicial error whether the phrase pertains to the issue of proximate cause or the issue of negligence itself * # *” The majority opinion says, 6 Ohio St. 2d at 194 : “In the case at | 2 | 1966–1967 |
Bradley v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc.
green
2 sentences1966(An example of the confusion attendant upon the term, “in the slightest degree,” is apparent from an examination of Bradley, an Infant, v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc., supra [ 154 Ohio St. 154 ], wherein the jury answered an interrogatory by apportioning negligence even though the general charge of the court expressly forbade such apportionment.) In so holding, we approve Schweinfurth, Admr., v. C., C., C. & St. 1966(An example of the confusion attendant upon the term, “in the slightest degree,” is apparent from an examination of Bradley, an Infant, v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc., supra [ 154 Ohio St. 154 ], wherein the jury answered an interrogatory by apportioning negligence even though the general charge of the court expressly forbade such apportionment.) In so holding, we approve Schweinfurth, Admr., v. C., C., C. & St. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.