within hearing in Ohio

2005R. 401 defines "relevant evidence" as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." It is well established that a trial judge must at all times be impartial and refrain from comments which might influence the jury. * * * In State v. Kay (1967), 12 Ohio App.2d 38 , 49 * * * this court stated: "Statements made by a trial judge during the progress of a trial and within hearing of the jury are of the same effect as though embodied in the charge to the j

2004(Emphasis added.) {¶ 65} In State v. Kay (1967), 12 Ohio App.2d 38 , 49 , 230 N.E.2d 652 , this court stated: "Statements made by a trial judge during the progress of a trial and within hearing of the jury are of the same effect as though embodied in the charge to the jury, and, where such remarks or questioning may lend themselves to being interpreted as an opinion on the part of the judge as to the credibility of witnesses or of a defendant or an opinion on his part as to the facts of the case, prejudicial error results. * * *." See, also, State v. Martin (April 22, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No.

2005R. 401 defines "relevant evidence" as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." It is well established that a trial judge must at all times be impartial and refrain from comments which might influence the jury. * * * In State v. Kay (1967), 12 Ohio App.2d 38 , 49 * * * this court stated: "Statements made by a trial judge during the progress of a trial and within hearing of the jury are of the same effect as though embodied in the charge to the j

2005R. 401 defines "relevant evidence" as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." It is well established that a trial judge must at all times be impartial and refrain from comments which might influence the jury. * * * In State v. Kay (1967), 12 Ohio App.2d 38 , 49 * * * this court stated: "Statements made by a trial judge during the progress of a trial and within hearing of the jury are of the same effect as though embodied in the charge to the j

2004Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105 , 671 N.E.2d 241 ; Zemcik v. La Pine Truck Sales Equipment (1998), 124 Ohio App.3d 581 , 585 , 706 N.E.2d 860 .

2004Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105 , 671 N.E.2d 241 ; Zemcik v. La Pine Truck Sales Equipment (1998), 124 Ohio App.3d 581 , 585 , 706 N.E.2d 860 .

2004Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105 , 671 N.E.2d 241 ; Zemcik v. La Pine Truck Sales Equipment (1998), 124 Ohio App.3d 581 , 585 , 706 N.E.2d 860 .

1999Therefore, the estate has no standing with regard to the within claim. “(3) This decision is further based on the case of [Breidenbach] v. Mayfield (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 138 [ 524 N.E.2d 502 ], wherein the court opined that ‘the legal representative of the estate of a Workers’ Compensation claimant may not appeal a decision of the Industrial Commission to a Common Pleas Court pursuant to 4123.519.’ ” {¶ 4} David filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying payment of accrued benefits.

1999Therefore, the estate has no standing with regard to the within claim. “(3) This decision is further based on the case of [Breidenbach] v. Mayfield (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 138 [ 524 N.E.2d 502 ], wherein the court opined that ‘the legal representative of the estate of a Workers’ Compensation claimant may not appeal a decision of the Industrial Commission to a Common Pleas Court pursuant to 4123.519.’ ” {¶ 4} David filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying payment of accrued benefits.

1988The within claim is not based upon libel, slander or defamation, and is therefore inapplicable to New York Times v. Sullivan [(1965), 376 U.S. 254 ].” “The lower court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of a one-year statute of limitations violation.