Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2317
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.03 (2026)

Cases in which a party shall not testify

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
August 7, 2007
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 53 - 127th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

A party shall not testify when the adverse party is the guardian or trustee of an incompetent person, or of a child of a deceased person, or is an executor or administrator, or claims or defends as heir, grantee, assignee, devisee, or legatee of a deceased person except:

(A) As to facts which occurred after the appointment of the guardian or trustee of an incompetent person, and, in the other cases, after the time the decedent, grantor, assignor, or testator died;

(B) When the action or proceeding relates to a contract made through an agent by a person since deceased, and the agent is competent to testify as a witness, a party may testify on the same subject;

(C) If a party, or one having a direct interest, testifies to transactions or conversations with another party, the latter may testify as to the same transactions or conversations;

(D) If a party offers evidence of conversations or admissions of the opposite party, the latter may testify concerning the same conversations or admissions; and, if evidence of declarations against interest made by an incompetent or deceased person has been admitted, then any oral or written declaration made by such incompetent or deceased person concerning the same subject to which any such admitted evidence relates, and which but for this provision would be excluded as self-serving, shall be admitted in evidence if it be proved to the satisfaction of the trial judge that the declaration was made at a time when the declarant was competent to testify, concerning a subject matter in issue, and, when no apparent motive to misrepresent appears;

(E) In an action or proceeding by or against a partner or joint contractor, the adverse party shall not testify to transactions with, or admissions by, a partner or joint contractor since deceased, unless they were made in the presence of the surviving partner or joint contractor, and this rule applies without regard to the character in which the parties sue or are sued;

(F) If the claim or defense is founded on a book account, a party may testify that the book is the party's account book, that it is a book of original entries, that the entries therein were made in the regular course of business by the party personally, a person since deceased, or a disinterested person, and the book is then competent evidence in any case, without regard to the parties, upon like proof by any competent witness;

(G) If after testifying orally, a party dies, the evidence may be proved by either party on a further trial of the case, whereupon the opposite party may testify to the same matters;

(H) If a party dies and the party's deposition is offered in evidence, the opposite party may testify as to all competent matters therein.

This section does not apply to actions for causing death, or actions or proceedings involving the validity of a deed, will or codicil. When a case is plainly within the reason and spirit of this section and sections 2317.01 and 2317.02 of the Revised Code, though not within the strict letter, their principles shall be applied.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases, 1954–2016 · leading case: Johnson v. Porter, 471 N.E.2d 484 (Ohio 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. Porter, 471 N.E.2d 484 (Ohio 1984). · cites it 9× “This matter presents the issue of whether R.C. 2317.03, the “dead man’s” statute, has been either totally or partially abrogated by the adoption of Evid.”
Bilikam v. Bilikam, 441 N.E.2d 845 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1982). · cites it 5× “Defendant contends that the trial court erred by applying R.C. 2317.03, the “Dead Man’s Statute,” and that the court misapplied Evid.”
Eberly v. A-P Controls, Inc., 572 N.E.2d 633 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 3× “804(B)(5) and in so doing reveals a more fundamental reason why the proffered testimony is inadmissible.”
Testa v. Roberts, 542 N.E.2d 654 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1988). · cites it 2× “Prior to 1980, Ohio courts applied R.C. 2317.03, the “dead man’s” statute, to disqualify the testimony of an adverse party in a suit prosecuted or defended by the executor or administrator of a decedent’s estate.”
State v. Wood, 752 N.E.2d 990 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001). · cites it 6× “R.C. 2317.03 provides in that “[w]hen a case is plainly within the reason and spirit of this section and sections 2317.”
Simandl v. Schimandle, 445 N.E.2d 734 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1982). · cites it 5× “Ill Finally, defendant argues that the testimony of plaintiff Albina Simandl about statements or transactions before Clarence’s death was inadmissible under the Dead Man’s Statute, R.C. 2317.03. The Dead Man’s Statute, which made a party incompetent to testify where the adverse…”
Gladman v. Carns, 223 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1964). · cites it 6× “Section 2317.03, Revised Code, provides in part that “a party shall not testify when the adverse party is * * * an executor * * *.”
McFarren v. Canton, 2016-Ohio-484, 59 N.E.3d 652. “601 abrogated R.C. 2317.03, the “dead man's” statute, which Stark County, Case No.”
Amf, Inc. v. Mravec, 440 N.E.2d 600 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1981). “” 3 The court found Exhibit A admissible under R.C. 2317.03, the dead man’s statute. The correct statutory citation is 2317.”
State v. Desper, 783 N.E.2d 939 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2002). “No physician-patient privilege existed under Ohio common law prior to the adoption of R.C. 2317.03. Ohio State Med. Bd. v. Miller (1989), 44 Ohio St.”
Freedline v. Cielensky, 184 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1961). · cites it 2× “It is thus seen that, under our view of this case, the question of the application of the so-called dead man’s statute, Section 2317.03, Revised Code, and the statute of frauds, Sections 1335.”
In re Loewenthal, 134 N.E.2d 158 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1956). · cites it 2× “The rule is briefly expressed in the Prince case, where the court stated, at page 467: “After a careful examination of these decisions of other states, a majority of the court is of the opinion that the better and safer rule is that the mere filing of a deposition taken of an…”
Show all 38 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.03(F): 1 case
Touche Ross & Co. v. Landskroner, 486 N.E.2d 850 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1984).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.