Whenever it is relevant in a civil or criminal action or proceeding to determine the paternity or identity of any person, the trial court on motion shall order any party to the action and any person involved in the controversy or proceeding to submit to one or more blood-grouping tests, to be made by qualified physicians, clinical nurse specialists, or certified nurse practitioners or other qualified persons, not to exceed three, to be selected by the court and under such restrictions or directions as the court or judge deems proper. In cases where exclusion is established, the results of the tests together with the findings of the experts of the fact of nonpaternity are receivable in evidence. Such experts shall be subject to cross-examination by both parties after the court has caused them to disclose their findings to the court or to the court and jury. Whenever the court orders such blood-grouping tests to be taken and one of the parties refuses to submit to such test, such fact shall be disclosed upon the trial unless good cause is shown to the contrary. The court shall determine how and by whom the costs of such examination shall be paid.
Last updated February 18, 2025 at 5:15 PM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1959–2018 · leading case: Owens v. Bell, 451 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1983).
Owens v. Bell, 451 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1983). · cites it 5דAs stated, the sole issue raised by this appeal is whether R.C. 2317.47 and former R.C. 3111.16 would, in matters originating prior to current law, have precluded the admission of HLA test evidence which did not exclude the putative father.”
State v. Pearson, 682 N.E.2d 1077 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3דMoreover, R.C. 2317.47 provides that blood may be extracted from a person in a criminal case pursuant to a court order.”
State v. Johnson, 2013 Ohio 440 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “263(F) (limiting the permissible uses of evidence regarding the use of occupant restraining devices); R.C. 2925.51(A) (providing that laboratory reports constitute “prima-facie evidence of the content, identity, and weight” of controlled substances); and R.”
State v. Cremeans, 825 N.E.2d 1124 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “The test also appears to have been authorized by R.C. 2317.47, which provides: "Whenever it is relevant in a civil or criminal action or proceeding to determine the * * * identity of any person, the trial court on motion shall order any party to the action and any person…”
Price v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 515 N.E.2d 931 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “” R.C. 2317.47. In fact, non-physicians perform a great majority of these tests.”
State v. Lucarelli, 2013 Ohio 1606 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “51(A) (providing that laboratory reports constitute “prima-facie evidence of the content, identity, and weight” of controlled substances); and R.C. 2317.47 (providing for blood-grouping tests to determine identity or paternity).”
State v. Stevens, 257 N.E.2d 396 (Ohio 1970). · cites it 2דSection 2317.47, Revised Code, makes it mandatory for the trial court, on motion, to order blood grouping tests when “it is relevant * * * to determine paternity # * *',! Defendant’s motion for the tests should have been granted.”
State v. Lacey, 2018 Ohio 4145 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “1989), is inapposite; in Hill, the First District considered a trial court’s ruling on a motion for paternity testing pursuant to R.C. 2317.47 for the purpose of determining the identity of an alleged rapist.”
Jeffers v. Phillips Ready Mix, 593 N.E.2d 443 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “R.C. 2317.47(B)(2)(b). This disclosure would be to the *67 court and occur after the plaintiffs entitlement to the compensatory damages is determined.”
State v. Collazo, 2013 Ohio 439 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “51(A) (providing that laboratory reports constitute “prima-facie evidence of the content, identity, and weight” of controlled substances); and R.C. 2317.47 (providing for blood-grouping tests to determine identity or paternity).”
State v. Funk, 2013 Ohio 444 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “51(A) (providing that laboratory reports constitute “prima-facie evidence of the content, identity, and weight” of controlled substances); and R.C. 2317.47 (providing for blood-grouping tests to determine identity or paternity).”
Langel v. Langel, 175 N.E.2d 312 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960). · cites it 2דThe defendant also claims that Section 2317.47, Revised Code, authorizing the use of blood-grouping tests does not apply to divorce cases.”
Jeffers v. Phillips Ready Mix, 593 N.E.2d 443 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “R.C. 2317.47(B)(2)(b). This disclosure would be to the *67 court and occur after the plaintiffs entitlement to the compensatory damages is determined.”
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.