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.
27 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marshall v. Gibsongreen2 sentences2024When it is claimed that improper jury instructions were given, an appellate court must “consider the jury charge as a whole and determine whether the charge misled the jury in a manner affecting the complaining party’s substantial rights.” Id., citing Dublin v. Pewamo Ltd., 10th Dist. 2024“An inadequate instruction that misleads the jury constitutes reversible error.” Id., citing Marshall v. Gibson, 19 Ohio St.3d 10, 12 (1985). | 3 | 13 |
Murphy v. Carrollton Manufacturing Co.green1 sentence2015Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 585, 591 (1991). “‘An inadequate jury instruction that misleads the jury constitutes reversible error.’” Auer at ¶ 12 , quoting Groob at ¶ 32 . | 1 | 1 |
Goldfuss v. Davidsongreen1 sentence2014Marshall v. Gibson, 19 Ohio St.3d 10, 12 (1985). {¶ 11} In addition, Civ.R. 51(A) provides: On appeal, a party may not assign as error the giving or the failure to give any instruction unless the party objects before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating specifically the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection. {¶ 12} It is well settled the "failure to timely advise a trial court of possible error, by objection or otherwise, results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal." Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121 (1997). {¶ 13} In its first assignment of er | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Groob v. KeyBank
green
2 sentences2015An inadequate jury instruction that misleads the jury constitutes reversible error.” Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 , 2006-Ohio-1189 , 843 N.E.2d 1170 ¶ 32 . {¶27} The O’Loughlins first challenge the instruction involving the foreseeability of Emmet’s injury as it relates to the standard of care Dr. Bowen and the nurses owed to Dara and Emmet. 2015An inadequate jury instruction that misleads the jury constitutes reversible error.” Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 , 2006-Ohio-1189 , 843 N.E.2d 1170 ¶ 32 . {¶27} The O’Loughlins first challenge the instruction involving the foreseeability of Emmet’s injury as it relates to the standard of care Dr. Bowen and the nurses owed to Dara and Emmet. | 9 | 2006–2015 |
Cromer v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2024“An inadequate instruction that misleads the jury constitutes reversible error.” Id., citing Marshall v. Gibson, 19 Ohio St.3d 10, 12 (1985). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Auer v. Paliath (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2019In support, appellant cites Auer v. Plaith (2014), 140 Ohio St. 3d 276 for the contention that “a trial court must give jury instructions that correctly and completely state the law.” However, the next line in that opinion provides that “an inadequate jury instruction that misleads the jury constitutes reversible error.” Id at ¶ 12. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Wozniak v. Wozniak
green
2 sentences2010Nos. 20669, 20670, 2002-Ohio-3187 , ¶19, quoting Wozniak v. Wozniak (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 400, 410 , 629 N.E.2d 500 (internal citations omitted). 2010Nos. 20669, 20670, 2002-Ohio-3187 , ¶19, quoting Wozniak v. Wozniak (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 400, 410 , 629 N.E.2d 500 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Vahila v. Hall
green
1 sentence2009In other words, they maintain that the trial court erroneously defined the causation and damages elements of their cause of action so as to require them to prove a "case within a case." They argue that the "case within a case" requirement does not apply here because they are not claiming that appellee's negligence deprived them of a more favorable result than they actually obtained; rather, they are claiming that her negligence deprived them of the opportunity to pursue their medical malpractice claim in the first instance. {¶ 11} Appellants urge that the applicable statement of law is found i | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Vahila v. Hall
green
1 sentence2009In other words, they maintain that the trial court erroneously defined the causation and damages elements of their cause of action so as to require them to prove a "case within a case." They argue that the "case within a case" requirement does not apply here because they are not claiming that appellee's negligence deprived them of a more favorable result than they actually obtained; rather, they are claiming that her negligence deprived them of the opportunity to pursue their medical malpractice claim in the first instance. {¶ 11} Appellants urge that the applicable statement of law is found i | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ashburn v. Roth, Ca2006-03-054 (6-18-2007)
green
1 sentence2009CA2006-03-054, CA2006-03-070, 2007-Ohio-2995 , ¶ 11 . {¶ 69} An inadequate jury instruction that misleads the jury constitutes reversible error. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hammerschmidt v. Mignogna
green
1 sentence1999Hammerschmidt v. Mignogna (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 276 , 280 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Sech v. Rogers
green
2 sentences1989Sech v. Rogers (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 462, 464 , 6 OBR 515, 517, 453 N.E.2d 705, 707 . 1989Sech v. Rogers (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 462, 464 , 6 OBR 515, 517, 453 N.E.2d 705, 707 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.