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.
10 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2025See Evid.R. 601, Staff Notes (“[d]ivision (B)(5)(b) is amended to clarify the time at which the active clinical practice requirement is needed to qualify the witness as an expert witness, in response to the Supreme Court of Ohio's ruling in Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 , 2021-Ohio-3304”). 25 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶73} Thus, the admissibility of Dr. Wilkey’s testimony squarely turns on which version of Evid.R. 601(B)(5)(b) applies. 2025See Evid.R. 601, Staff Notes (“[d]ivision (B)(5)(b) is amended to clarify the time at which the active clinical practice requirement is needed to qualify the witness as an expert witness, in response to the Supreme Court of Ohio's ruling in Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 , 2021-Ohio-3304”). 25 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶73} Thus, the admissibility of Dr. Wilkey’s testimony squarely turns on which version of Evid.R. 601(B)(5)(b) applies. | 1 | 5 |
Aldridge v. Gardnergreen2 sentences2013Id. at ¶27. {¶31} Additionally, in Aldridge v. Garner, 159 Ohio App.3d 688 , 2005-Ohio-829, ¶18 (4th Dist.), though a physician did not devote one-half of his time to active clinical practice at the time his testimony was offered, the Fourth Appellate District found his experiential background rendered him competent to testify under Evid.R. 601(D): “Based upon Dr. Kirwin’s length of practice, and the fact that Dr. Kirwin was engaged in active clinical practice at all times relevant to the lawsuit against Garner, we find that Dr. 10 Kirwin’s experience satisfies the purpose intended by the acti 2013Id. at ¶27. {¶31} Additionally, in Aldridge v. Garner, 159 Ohio App.3d 688 , 2005-Ohio-829, ¶18 (4th Dist.), though a physician did not devote one-half of his time to active clinical practice at the time his testimony was offered, the Fourth Appellate District found his experiential background rendered him competent to testify under Evid.R. 601(D): “Based upon Dr. Kirwin’s length of practice, and the fact that Dr. Kirwin was engaged in active clinical practice at all times relevant to the lawsuit against Garner, we find that Dr. 10 Kirwin’s experience satisfies the purpose intended by the acti | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bolesgreen2 sentences2021However, it has been noted by at least one Ohio appellate court that this is an “offensive formulation.” State v. Boles, 187 Ohio App.3d 345 , 2010-Ohio-278 , 932 N.E.2d 345, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.). 2021However, it has been noted by at least one Ohio appellate court that this is an “offensive formulation.” State v. Boles, 187 Ohio App.3d 345 , 2010-Ohio-278 , 932 N.E.2d 345, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Courtney v. Durrani
green
2 sentences2025Recent precedent from this court, specifically Jones v. Durrani, 2024-Ohio-1776 (1st Dist.), and Courtney v. Durrani, 2025-Ohio-2335 (1st Dist.), held these same arguments to be without merit. 2025Id. {¶64} We then explained that Evid.R. 601 was amended in July of 2023, and that the amended rule assessed a testifying expert’s compliance with the active- clinical-practice requirement “‘at either the time the negligent act is alleged to have occurred or the date the claim accrued.’” Id. at ¶ 72, quoting Evid.R. 601(B)(5)(b) (effective July 1, 2023). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Jones v. Durrani
green
1 sentence2025Recent precedent from this court, specifically Jones v. Durrani, 2024-Ohio-1776 (1st Dist.), and Courtney v. Durrani, 2025-Ohio-2335 (1st Dist.), held these same arguments to be without merit. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland
green
1 sentence2022Id. at ¶ 39 and 42. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
McCrory v. State
green
2 sentences2021Celmer v. Rodgers {¶ 15} Approximately 25 years after McCrory, 67 Ohio St.2d 99 , 423 N.E.2d 156 , was decided, and after the active-clinical-practice requirement had been incorporated into Evid.R. 601, we revisited the issue of what satisfies the active-clinical-practice requirement. 2021Celmer v. Rodgers {¶ 15} Approximately 25 years after McCrory, 67 Ohio St.2d 99 , 423 N.E.2d 156 , was decided, and after the active-clinical-practice requirement had been incorporated into Evid.R. 601, we revisited the issue of what satisfies the active-clinical-practice requirement. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Blakemore v. Blakemore
green
2 sentences2021The abuse-of-discretion standard, however, does not neatly apply to a case like this—i.e., a case in which the trial court relied on an erroneous conception of the active-clinical-practice requirement of Evid.R. 601. {¶ 34} We have stated that “[a]n abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the trial court’s attitude, in reaching its decision, was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.” See, e.g., Celmer, 114 Ohio St.3d 221 , 2007-Ohio-3697 , 871 N.E.2d 557 , at ¶ 19 (plurality opinion), citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 2021The abuse-of-discretion standard, however, does not neatly apply to a case like this—i.e., a case in which the trial court relied on an erroneous conception of the active-clinical-practice requirement of Evid.R. 601. {¶ 34} We have stated that “[a]n abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the trial court’s attitude, in reaching its decision, was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.” See, e.g., Celmer, 114 Ohio St.3d 221 , 2007-Ohio-3697 , 871 N.E.2d 557 , at ¶ 19 (plurality opinion), citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Celmer v. Rodgers
neutral
2 sentences2021Celmer, 114 Ohio St.3d 221 , 2007-Ohio- 3697, 871 N.E.2d 557 (plurality opinion). 2021The abuse-of-discretion standard, however, does not neatly apply to a case like this—i.e., a case in which the trial court relied on an erroneous conception of the active-clinical-practice requirement of Evid.R. 601. {¶ 34} We have stated that “[a]n abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the trial court’s attitude, in reaching its decision, was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.” See, e.g., Celmer, 114 Ohio St.3d 221 , 2007-Ohio-3697 , 871 N.E.2d 557 , at ¶ 19 (plurality opinion), citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Crosswhite v. Desai
green
1 sentence2007Crosswhite v. Desai (1989), 64 Ohio App.3d 170 . {¶ 18} Appellant cites the recent Ohio Supreme Court opinion in Celmer v. Rodgers , 2007-Ohio-3697 , in support of her position. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
McNair v. Hartford Fire Ins., Unpublished Decision (1-6-2005)
neutral
1 sentence2007R. 601 [D] is the time of testimony); see, also, Ratliff v. Stewart (July 24, 1989), Butler App. No. CA88-07-109; but, see, Aldridge v. Garner , 159 Ohio App.3d 688 , 2005-Ohio-29 , ¶ 18 (based upon physician's length of practice and fact he was engaged in active clinical practice at the time relevant to lawsuit, physician's experience satisfies purpose of Evid.R. 601[D] and trial court's strict interpretation of present-tense requirement in Evid.R. 801[D] is unreasonable). *Page 15 {¶ 67} Appellant's sixth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 68} Assignment of Error No. 7: {¶ 69} "THE TRIAL C | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.