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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Peyko v. Frederick
green
2 sentences1995In Peyko v. Frederick (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 164 , 25 OBR 207, 495 N.E.2d 918 , paragraph two of the syllabus states: “If the defense asserts the attorney-client privilege with regard to the contents of the ‘claims file,’ the trial court shall determine by in camera inspection which portions of the file, if any are so privileged. 1995In Peyko v. Frederick (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 164 , 25 OBR 207, 495 N.E.2d 918 , paragraph two of the syllabus states: “If the defense asserts the attorney-client privilege with regard to the contents of the ‘claims file,’ the trial court shall determine by in camera inspection which portions of the file, if any are so privileged. | 5 | 1992–2017 |
Bell v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center
green
2 sentences2017Ctr., 67 Ohio St.3d 60, 63 , 616 N.E.2d 181 (1993) (concluding that “only * * * after * * * in camera review and a trial court order compelling disclosure” are substantial rights implicated);2 Brahm 2 In Bell, the court explained “the mechanism available to determine whether a claim of privilege in a discovery dispute is justified” as follows: “If the defense asserts the attorney-client privilege with regard to the contents of the ‘claims file,’ the trial court shall determine by in camera inspection which portions of the file, if any, are so privileged. 2017Ctr., 67 Ohio St.3d 60, 63 , 616 N.E.2d 181 (1993) (concluding that “only * * * after * * * in camera review and a trial court order compelling disclosure” are substantial rights implicated);2 Brahm 2 In Bell, the court explained “the mechanism available to determine whether a claim of privilege in a discovery dispute is justified” as follows: “If the defense asserts the attorney-client privilege with regard to the contents of the ‘claims file,’ the trial court shall determine by in camera inspection which portions of the file, if any, are so privileged. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Scotts Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, Unpublished Decision (8-15-2005)
neutral
1 sentence2006The plaintiff then shall be granted access to the non-privileged portions of the file.’ ” Moskovitz, 69 Ohio St.3d at 660 , 635 N.E.2d 331 , quoting Peyko at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 19} Finally, Preferred Mutual relies on Scotts Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, Union App. No. 14-04-51, 2005-Ohio-4188 , 2005 WL 1939422 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center
green
2 sentences2006The plaintiff then shall be granted access to the non-privileged portions of the file.’ ” Moskovitz, 69 Ohio St.3d at 660 , 635 N.E.2d 331 , quoting Peyko at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 19} Finally, Preferred Mutual relies on Scotts Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, Union App. No. 14-04-51, 2005-Ohio-4188 , 2005 WL 1939422 . 2006The plaintiff then shall be granted access to the non-privileged portions of the file.’ ” Moskovitz, 69 Ohio St.3d at 660 , 635 N.E.2d 331 , quoting Peyko at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 19} Finally, Preferred Mutual relies on Scotts Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, Union App. No. 14-04-51, 2005-Ohio-4188 , 2005 WL 1939422 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Radovanic v. Cossler
green
1 sentence2005The plaintiff then shall be granted access to the non-privileged portions of the file." {¶ 38} The Moskovitz court found, and this court held in Radovanic v. Cossler (2000), 140 Ohio App.3d 208 , 214 , that: " Peyko establishes that any determination regarding a party's good faith effort to settle requires a review of the settlement efforts made by a party's insurance carrier(s). 25 Ohio St. 3d at 166 -167 , 25 Ohio B. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.