law regarding doctrine in Ohio

2020Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384 , 2014-Ohio-4563 , in which the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed a denial of a writ of mandamus on a de novo standard notwithstanding the general rule that the standard of review in a mandamus case is abuse of discretion. {¶ 68} Having similarly conducted an independent review of the record and the law regarding the standard of review in a case such as this, I agree with the majority that de novo review is appropriate.

2020Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384 , 2014-Ohio-4563 , in which the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed a denial of a writ of mandamus on a de novo standard notwithstanding the general rule that the standard of review in a mandamus case is abuse of discretion. {¶ 68} Having similarly conducted an independent review of the record and the law regarding the standard of review in a case such as this, I agree with the majority that de novo review is appropriate.

2020In Lamdin, this court, in fact, acknowledged that the General Assembly could enact a law regarding waiver of the physician-patient privilege upon the filing of a civil action, but, the court stated, “until such time as it is so adopted, a personal injury litigant does not waive the physician-patient privilege merely by filing his petition.” Id. at 24 .

2016State v. Deanda, 136 Ohio St.3d 18 , 2013-Ohio-1722, ¶6 .

2016State v. Deanda, 136 Ohio St.3d 18 , 2013-Ohio-1722, ¶6 .

2014The Davis court states: In Ohio, "[t]he doctrine of res judicata encompasses the two related concepts of claim preclusion, also known as res judicata or estoppel by judgment, and issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel." O'Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio St.3d 59 , 2007-Ohio-1102 , 862 N.E.2d 803 , ¶ 6. "[I]ssue preclusion, [or] collateral estoppel, holds that a fact or a point that was actually and directly at issue in a No. 13AP-1099 7 previous action, and was passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, may not be drawn into question in a subsequent

2014The Davis court states: In Ohio, "[t]he doctrine of res judicata encompasses the two related concepts of claim preclusion, also known as res judicata or estoppel by judgment, and issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel." O'Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio St.3d 59 , 2007-Ohio-1102 , 862 N.E.2d 803 , ¶ 6. "[I]ssue preclusion, [or] collateral estoppel, holds that a fact or a point that was actually and directly at issue in a No. 13AP-1099 7 previous action, and was passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, may not be drawn into question in a subsequent

2014Retirement Bd., 120 Ohio St.3d 386 , 2008-Ohio-6254 , the court had occasion to succinctly set forth the law regarding the doctrine of res judicata.

2005The Eleventh District was satisfied that a defendant had notified the state when he said that he intended to rely on "the general authority used in every probable cause determination." Mook, supra. Here, defendant's reference to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" provided more than sufficient notice to the state of the legal theory defendant planned to use. {¶ 21} In its brief, the state cites to Xenia v. Wallace (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 216 , to support its claim that the lack of particularity in defendant's motion unlawfully prejudiced it.