summary hearing in Ohio

2025Rice argued that the state’s summary challenge to 1 See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

2025As we noted in State v. Lanlois, 2013-Ohio-5177 , ¶ 18 (6th Dist.), “In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 … (1993), the United States Supreme Court held that the trial court must act as a ‘gatekeeper’ to ensure both the relevance and reliability of expert scientific testimony before admitting it.

2016Id. {¶13} Unlike in Magruder, in this case, there is no judgment entry by the trial court reviving a dormant entry.

2013Comm., 68 Ohio St.3d 329 , 626 N.E.2d 678 (1994), we held that there was no due process violation when the absent commissioner had an audiotape of the hearing, a summary of the hearing prepared by a legal advisor, and additional discussion with the other commissioners who were present at the hearing. {¶ 16} Here, Abrams stated that he had reviewed the claim file and talked with Cromley, a longtime commission hearing officer, who summarized the hearing testimony, evidence, and arguments for him.

2008"It is thus undisputed that [the commissioner] did not in any manner consider any evidence presented at the hearing." (Emphasis sic.) Id. {¶ 21} Here, although Keith Elliott did not attend the hearing, a summary of the evidence was presented to him. "[D]eciding officers may `consider and appraise' the evidence by reading a summary or analysis prepared by subordinates." Id. at 106 , quoting Administrative Law (1 Ed. 1958), Section 11.03.

2008"It is thus undisputed that [the commissioner] did not in any manner consider any evidence presented at the hearing." (Emphasis sic.) Id. {¶ 21} Here, although Keith Elliott did not attend the hearing, a summary of the evidence was presented to him. "[D]eciding officers may `consider and appraise' the evidence by reading a summary or analysis prepared by subordinates." Id. at 106 , quoting Administrative Law (1 Ed. 1958), Section 11.03.

2006The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." (Citations omitted.) {¶ 42} The trial court defined prior calculation and design as follows: "Prior calculation and design means that the purpose to cause the death was reached by a definite process of reasoning in advance of the homicide which process of reasoning must have included a mental plan involving studied consideration of the method and the means with which to cause

2005Barren v. Brown (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 169 , 5 O.O.3d 136 , 365 N.E.2d 887 , a committee designated to represent petitioners with respect to a referendum petition against specified portions of a proposed law filed with the Attorney General a referendum petition and summary of the proposed law pursuant to R.C. 3519.01.

2005Barren v. Brown (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 169 , 5 O.O.3d 136 , 365 N.E.2d 887 , a committee designated to represent petitioners with respect to a referendum petition against specified portions of a proposed law filed with the Attorney General a referendum petition and summary of the proposed law pursuant to R.C. 3519.01.

1970Black’s Law Dictionary (3rd Ed. 1933), defining estoppel by deed, cites many cases including the Ohio Supreme Court case of Douglass v. Scott (1831), 5 Ohio 194 , which contains at pages 197 and 198 the following summary of the principle of estoppel by deed: “The admission of a fact, however made, is always evidence of the fact against the party making the admission; but the effect of the admission depends upon the manner and purpose for which it is made.

1963A hearing on exceptions to an inventory is a summary proceeding in which the Probate Court may summarily determine whether those charged with the responsibility therefor have included in a decedent’s estate more or less than such decedent owned at the time of his death, but it does not have plenary power to determine the collectibility of the debt.” (Emphasis added.) The statement in the opinion by Guernsey, J., in In re Estate of Wreede, supra, pp. 332 and 333, is applicable here: “It is our conclusion that where title is not in issue a Probate Court does not have any power or jurisdiction, e

1963In sustaining exceptions on such grounds the Probate Court exceeded its jurisdiction of the subject matter and committed error prejudicial to the executor of the estate, in the particulars assigned.” It is my opinion, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2305.03, Nevised Code, and the decision in In re Estate of Wreede, supra ( 106 Ohio App., 324 ), that the Probate Court was not authorized to determine the value or whether the note in question was collectible in the hearing on exceptions, but was required to determine that said note should be included in the inventory of th