salutary rule in Ohio

1992The safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on a strict observance of this salutary rule.” Sinking-Fund Cases (1879), 99 U.S. 700, 718 , 25 L.Ed. 496, 504 .

1992The safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on a strict observance of this salutary rule.” Sinking-Fund Cases (1879), 99 U.S. 700, 718 , 25 L.Ed. 496, 504 .

1987No judge could tolerate an inquisition into the elements comprising his decision — indeed, ‘[s]uch an examination of a judge would be destructive of judicial responsibility’ — and by the same token ‘the integrity of the administrative process must be equally respected.’ * * *” (Emphasis added and footnotes deleted.) In Libis v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals (1972), 33 Ohio App. 2d 94 , 62 O.O. 2d 146, 292 N.E. 2d 642 , the Summit County Court of Appeals cited Morgan in holding that it was not error for the court of common pleas to refuse to permit examination of members of the board of zoning appeals

1987No judge could tolerate an inquisition into the elements comprising his decision — indeed, ‘[s]uch an examination of a judge would be destructive of judicial responsibility’ — and by the same token ‘the integrity of the administrative process must be equally respected.’ * * *” (Emphasis added and footnotes deleted.) In Libis v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals (1972), 33 Ohio App. 2d 94 , 62 O.O. 2d 146, 292 N.E. 2d 642 , the Summit County Court of Appeals cited Morgan in holding that it was not error for the court of common pleas to refuse to permit examination of members of the board of zoning appeals

1986In Schultz v. Barberton Glass Co. (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 131 , 4 OBR 376, 447 N.E. 2d 109 , the Supreme Court recognized the existence of a cause of action for the negligent infliction of emotional distress without a contemporaneous physical injury.

1986In Schultz v. Barberton Glass Co. (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 131 , 4 OBR 376, 447 N.E. 2d 109 , the Supreme Court recognized the existence of a cause of action for the negligent infliction of emotional distress without a contemporaneous physical injury.

1986Without intent to denigrate the salutary rule that a reviewing court need not consider questions, even constitutional in nature, that were not raised in a trial court, State v. Awan (1986), 22 Ohio St. 3d 120 , syllabus, we have elected to address the claims advanced by the Willmanns in the case sub judice because of the compelling facts involved.

1978The salutary rule expressed by the Court of Appeals for Defiance County in the first paragraph of the syllabus in Hasselschwert v. Hasselschwert (1951), 90 Ohio App. 331 , 106 N. E. 2d 786 , reads: “Transactions between husband and wife must be fair and made without undue advantage, and will be closely scrutinized to prevent unfair treatment of the wife.” In light of constitutional considerations I interpret the Word “wife” in- this context as including a husband if he happens to be “the spouse in the poorest position to strike a fair bargain for himself.” Further, this case holds that-a defen

1978The salutary rule expressed by the Court of Appeals for Defiance County in the first paragraph of the syllabus in Hasselschwert v. Hasselschwert (1951), 90 Ohio App. 331 , 106 N. E. 2d 786 , reads: “Transactions between husband and wife must be fair and made without undue advantage, and will be closely scrutinized to prevent unfair treatment of the wife.” In light of constitutional considerations I interpret the Word “wife” in- this context as including a husband if he happens to be “the spouse in the poorest position to strike a fair bargain for himself.” Further, this case holds that-a defen

1970Bernard, 111 Ohio St. 726 , the doctrine is not approved: “As a rule of binding force, but as a salutary rule of practice, which should be applied in all cases where it may be employed as a shield against endless litigation,'and to compel obedience of trial courts to the mandates of reviewing courts, and not as a sword which may be employed as an instrument of oppression and injustice.” I find nothing in the record of the prior case, decided before this writer became a member of this court, to indi *42 cate that this court was called upon to decide or that it ever considered the precise questi

1955This salutary rule has been uniformly applied, and any modification by alleviation thereof would lead to the confusion resulting from Heidle v. Baldwin, 118 Ohio St., 375 , 161 N. E., 44 , 58 A. L.

1955This salutary rule has been uniformly applied, and any modification by alleviation thereof would lead to the confusion resulting from Heidle v. Baldwin, 118 Ohio St., 375 , 161 N. E., 44 , 58 A. L.

1954We agree with the salutary rule announced in Rauth v. Rauth, 73 Ohio App., 564 , 57 N. E. (2d), 266, and White v. White, 77 Ohio App., 447 , 66 N. E. (2d), 159, that in a *530 hearing on a motion to modify an order awarding custody of a child, evidence tending to show unfitness of the custodian, at or before the time such award was made, is not admissible and that only evidence of unfitness of the custodian since the time of the award may be introduced.

1954We agree with the salutary rule announced in Rauth v. Rauth, 73 Ohio App., 564 , 57 N. E. (2d), 266, and White v. White, 77 Ohio App., 447 , 66 N. E. (2d), 159, that in a *530 hearing on a motion to modify an order awarding custody of a child, evidence tending to show unfitness of the custodian, at or before the time such award was made, is not admissible and that only evidence of unfitness of the custodian since the time of the award may be introduced.

1920Bk., 5 Allen (87 Mass.), 428; Justice Savage, in Ex Parte M’Collum, 1 Cow., 550, 564 ; Justice Harris, in The People, ex rel.

1914Railway Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S., 155, 166 ; United States v. Railway Co., 163 Fed., 114 .

1914Railway Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S., 155, 166 ; United States v. Railway Co., 163 Fed., 114 .

1901The doctrine carried to the extent for which the insured contends in this case would subvert the salutary rule that the written contract must prevail over previous verbal arrangements and open the door to all the evils which that' rule was intended to prevent.” This has been a leading case on this point, and was followed in Crine v. Davis, 68 Ga., 138 ; Mauser v. Haughey, 60 Ind., 368 ; Stayton v. Graham, 139 Pa. St., 1; Shields v. Smith , 37 Ark., 52, and in Germania v. Browell, 62 Ark.,48.

1898But the U. S. Supreme Court held otherwise in the case of Seitz v. Brewers’ Refrigerator Co. ( 141 U. S., 510 .) In this case Mr. Chief Justice Fuller says: (p. 517.) “ A warranty or guaranty that the machine would reduce the temperature of the brewery to 40 deg. fahr. while in itself col lateral to the sale, which would be complete without it, would be part of the description and essential to the identity of the thing sold ; and to admit proof of such an engagement by parol would be to add another term to the written contract, contrary to the settled and salutary rule upon that subject. ” The