When the action or proceeding relates to a transaction or occurrence in which it has been shown or it is admitted that the adverse party acted either in whole or in part through an agent or employee, such agent or employee of the adverse party may be called as a witness and examined as if under cross-examination upon any matters at issue between the parties which are shown or admitted to have been within the scope of such agent's or employee's authority or employment.
The party calling for such examination shall not thereby be concluded but may rebut such agent's or employee's testimony by counter testimony.
The party whose agent or employee is called as a witness by the adverse party and whose agent or employee is examined as if under cross-examination shall not thereby be concluded but may rebut such agent's or employee's testimony by counter testimony.
Sidenstricker v. Miller Pavement Maint., Inc., 815 N.E.2d 736 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2004). · cites it 2דPlaintiffs first assignment of error asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it prohibited plaintiff from examining a witness as if on cross-examination, as R.C. 2317.52 and Evid.R. 611(C) allow. Specifically, plaintiff contends that he should have been allowed…”
Mills v. Pennsylvania New York Cent. Transp. Co., 243 N.E.2d 99 (Ohio 1968). · cites it 6דPlaintiff’s counsel sought this right under Section 2317.52, Revised Code, which in pertinent part reads: “When the action or proceeding relates to a transaction or occurrence in which it has been shown or it is admitted that the adverse party acted either in whole or in part…”
State v. Stearns, 454 N.E.2d 139 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1982). “611 (C) with former R.C. 2317.52. In this case, there was sufficient basis for the trial court to permit leading questions of these two state witnesses during direct examination, since the witnesses were shown to have a strong affinity to the defendant, they frequently gave…”
Thomas v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 895 N.E.2d 217 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2008). “” {¶ 143} R.C. 2317.52 sets forth when agents or employees may be cross-examined: *528 {¶ 144} “When the action or proceeding relates to a transaction or occurrence in which it has been shown or it is admitted that the adverse party acted either in whole or in part through an…”
Rhenish v. Deunk, 219 N.E.2d 822 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1963). · cites it 4ד(Section 2317.52, Revised Code.) The refusal to permit this witness to testify on matters clearly relevant to the issues was error prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiffs.”
Costell v. Toledo Hosp., 612 N.E.2d 487 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1992). “The Trial Court Erred To The Prejudice Of Plaintiff By Refusing To Allow Counsel To Cross-Examine Richard Osterhout Under R.C. 2317.52. “IX. The Trial Court Erred To The Prejudice Of Plaintiff By Giving Defendant Toledo Hospital’s Proposed Instruction No.”
Welch v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 191 N.E.2d 359 (Ohio Ct. App. 1961). · cites it 16דThe first assignment of error leads directly to Section 2317.52, Revised Code, which provides as follows: “When the action or proceeding relates to a transaction or occurrence in which it has been shown or it is admitted that the adverse party acted either in whole or in part…”
Wright v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pac. Ry. Co., 152 N.E.2d 421 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1958). · cites it 4דComing to the second assignment of error, namely, that the court erred in construing Section 2317.52 of the Revised Code, this court agrees that the Legislature might have been more specific in what it intended.”
Lakis v. Bd. of Liquor Control, 201 N.E.2d 605 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1963). · cites it 4דThe permittee claims the right *167 to examine Smith under the provisions of Section 2317.52, Revised Code, which was refused by the board requiring the permittee to call Smith as his own witness.”
Weidner v. Schottenstein, 169 N.E.2d 304 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1960). “The plaintiff placed defendants’ agent on the witness stand under the provisions of §2317.52 R. C., for purpose of cross-examination.”
March v. Dilly Door Co., 600 N.E.2d 281 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1991). “Thus, the trial court did not err in not allowing the plaintiffs to ask the hypothetical question. Accordingly, we overrule the second assignment of error.”
Cities Serv. Oil Co. v. Burkett, 176 Ohio St. 449 (1964). · cites it 4ד” However, in 1957, Section 2317.52, Revised Code, was enacted.”
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.