useful framework in Ohio

2003However, in Walker v. Holland (1997), 117 Ohio App.3d 775 , we did apply a useful analysis. {¶ 31} In Walker , the plaintiff was involved in a low-speed, head-on auto accident.

2003This, although barely, falls within the two to three-week period agreed on by all doctors who testified. {¶ 35} A useful analysis was applied in Walker v. Holland (1997), 117 Ohio App.3d 775 .

2021Several cases demonstrate this concept. {¶ 46} In U.S. v. Delancy, 502 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir.2007), law enforcement conducted an unlawful protective sweep of a residence, and ten to fifteen minutes later received consent to search the house.

2017Though the factors enumerated above provide a useful framework, we must not allow this factor-based analysis to obscure the underlying question, which "generally involves a pragmatic evaluation of the extent to which the illegal police conduct caused the defendant's response." Id. at 1310, quoting U.S. v. Bailey , 691 F.2d 1009 , 1013 (11th Cir. 1982). {¶ 12} The doctrine of inevitable discovery provides that tainted evidence remains admissible when evidence discovered during an initial illegal search would have been ultimately or inevitably discovered during a lawful investigation.

2017State v. Workman , 2015-Ohio-5049 , 52 N.E.3d 286 , ¶ 41, citing State v. Perkins , 18 Ohio St.3d 193 , 196, 480 N.E.2d 763 (1985).

2017State v. Workman , 2015-Ohio-5049 , 52 N.E.3d 286 , ¶ 41, citing State v. Perkins , 18 Ohio St.3d 193 , 196, 480 N.E.2d 763 (1985).

2017State v. Workman , 2015-Ohio-5049 , 52 N.E.3d 286 , ¶ 41, citing State v. Perkins , 18 Ohio St.3d 193 , 196, 480 N.E.2d 763 (1985).

2006I cannot conclude that nontestimonial matters are covered by the statute and therefore would approve and apply the useful test of Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 .

2006After noting that federal courts have applied different approaches for businesses, the Tenth District found that the most useful test was outlined in Snead v. Redland Aggregates, Inc. (C.A.5, 1993), 998 F.2d 1325 .

2006The test requires courts to weigh the following factors to decide if a business is a limited purpose public figure: {¶ 67} "`(1) the notoriety of the business to an average individual in areas where the business has a presence; (2) the nature of the business with respect to creating a high profile or prominence in public perception; and (3) the frequency and intensity of media scrutiny of the company.'" 1998 WL 807959 , at *8, quoting from 998 F.2d at 1329 . {¶ 68} The First District Court of Appeals has also applied the Sneed factors in a case involving a corporate plaintiff.

1995In this regard, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), 509 U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 , provides a useful analysis.

1995In this regard, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), 509 U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 , provides a useful analysis.

1988The trial court found that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had “devised a useful framework of analysis” in Ollman v. Evans (C.A.D.C. 1984), 750 F. 2d 970 (en banc).