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.
16 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Piercegreen2 sentences1995Finally, Evid.R. 702 1 provided: “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” In Pierce, supra, 64 Ohio St.3d at 496 , 597 N.E.2d at 111-112 , the Ohio Supreme Court made the following comments concerning the relevancy standard: “ ‘ * * * We believe the Rules of Evidence establish adequate preconditions for admissibility of expert testimony, an 1995Finally, Evid.R. 702 1 provided: “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” In Pierce, supra, 64 Ohio St.3d at 496 , 597 N.E.2d at 111-112 , the Ohio Supreme Court made the following comments concerning the relevancy standard: “ ‘ * * * We believe the Rules of Evidence establish adequate preconditions for admissibility of expert testimony, an | 1 | 4 |
United States v. Nicolas Gomezgreen1 sentence2023Instead, courts must determine whether the evidence is relevant to a “‘purpose other than the person’s character or propensity to behave in a certain way.’” Id., quoting United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845, 860 (7th Cir.2014). {¶97} Both Evid.R. 404(B) and R.C. 2945.59 permit other-acts evidence when the evidence is relevant to establishing a defendant’s intent. | 1 | 1 |
Toledo v. Bernard Ross Family Ltd. Partnershipgreen2 sentences2023Partnership, 165 Ohio App.3d 557 , 2006-Ohio-117, ¶ 64 (6th Dist.) (“Evid.R. 408 prohibits introduction of evidence regarding settlement or compromise that is offered ‘to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount.’”), quoting Evid.R. 408. {¶110} “Evid.R. 408 does not prohibit all evidence concerning settlement negotiations, as such evidence may be admissible under the relevancy test of Evid.R. 401, to show a witness is biased or to impeach a witness.” M.M. v. V.S., 6th Dist. 2023Partnership, 165 Ohio App.3d 557 , 2006-Ohio-117, ¶ 64 (6th Dist.) (“Evid.R. 408 prohibits introduction of evidence regarding settlement or compromise that is offered ‘to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount.’”), quoting Evid.R. 408. {¶110} “Evid.R. 408 does not prohibit all evidence concerning settlement negotiations, as such evidence may be admissible under the relevancy test of Evid.R. 401, to show a witness is biased or to impeach a witness.” M.M. v. V.S., 6th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Romeo, 2007-P-0066 (3-28-2008)green1 sentence2017Portage No. 2007-P-0066, 2008-Ohio-1499, ¶9 (citations omitted) (“Because we are asked to ascertain whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts of the present case, we review de novo[.]”). {¶135} All evidence must pass the relevancy test set forth in Evid.R. 401. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Chengreen1 sentence2013No. 12AP-1027, 2013-Ohio-4931, ¶ 13 (" 'The scope of pretrial discovery is broad and parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter.' "). {¶ 46} The relevancy test under Civ.R. 26(B)(1) is more expansive than the test applicable at trial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Snowdengreen1 sentence1999See State v. Snowden (1976), 49 Ohio App.2d 7 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2001The Frye test was explicitly rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Williams (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 53 , in favor of a relevancy standard. 1992By urging us to adopt the Frye test for the admissibility of DNA evidence, Pierce is asking us to reject the relevancy standard for the admission of scientific evidence recognized by this court in State v. Williams (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 53 , 4 OBR 144, 446 N.E.2d 444 , syllabus. | 5 | 1992–2001 |
M.M. v. V.S.
neutral
1 sentence2023Lucas No. L-21-1176, 2022-Ohio-1531, ¶ 28 , citing Kane v. Inpatient Med. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Covington v. MetroHealth System
green
1 sentence2013Covington v. MetroHealth Sys., 150 Ohio App.3d 558 , 2002-Ohio- 6629, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Lyles
green
2 sentences2012State v. Lyles, 42 Ohio St.3d 98, 99-100 , 537 N.E.2d 221 (1989). {¶23} Contrary to appellant’s position, the relevancy test does not require the evidence to directly prove an element of the offense. 2012State v. Lyles, 42 Ohio St.3d 98, 99-100 , 537 N.E.2d 221 (1989). {¶23} Contrary to appellant’s position, the relevancy test does not require the evidence to directly prove an element of the offense. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Tschantz v. Ferguson
green
2 sentences2008It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." *Page 11 {¶ 29} The relevancy test pursuant Civ.R. 26(B)(1) "is much broader than the test to be utilized at trial. [Evidence] is only irrelevant by the discovery test when the information sought will not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Tschantz v. Ferguson (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 693 , 715 , 647 N.E.2d 507 , citing Icenhower v. Icenhower (Aug. 14, 1975), Franklin App. No. 2008It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." *Page 11 {¶ 29} The relevancy test pursuant Civ.R. 26(B)(1) "is much broader than the test to be utilized at trial. [Evidence] is only irrelevant by the discovery test when the information sought will not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Tschantz v. Ferguson (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 693 , 715 , 647 N.E.2d 507 , citing Icenhower v. Icenhower (Aug. 14, 1975), Franklin App. No. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences1998Thus, the court found that the public opinion poll evidence did not meet the two-pronged relevancy test set out in Williams, 75 Ohio App.3d 102 , 598 N.E.2d 1250 , and affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of such evidence. 1998Thus, the court found that the public opinion poll evidence did not meet the two-pronged relevancy test set out in Williams, 75 Ohio App.3d 102 , 598 N.E.2d 1250 , and affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of such evidence. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Stokes v. Lorain Journal Co.
neutral
2 sentences1997Stokes v. Lorain Journal Co. (1970), 26 Ohio Misc. 219 , 55 O.O.2d 363 , 266 N.E.2d 857 . 1997Stokes v. Lorain Journal Co. (1970), 26 Ohio Misc. 219 , 55 O.O.2d 363 , 266 N.E.2d 857 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.