Legal Opinion
Pang v. Minch
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 29, 1990No. 89-442PublishedCited by 269 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
I
We will first consider the contention of appellant Minch concerning the trial court’s denial of her motion in limine seeking to foreclose consideration of the testimony of Dr. Kaufman by the jury. The basis for the motion was the alleged noncompliance by appellees with former Loe. R. 21 of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas *193Court. Promulgation of the rule is authorized by Civ. R. 16, which provides in relevant part:
“A court may adopt rules concerning pretrial procedure to accomplish the following objectives:
<<* * *
“(6) The exchange of medical reports and hospital recordsf.]”
Former Loe. R. 21…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- State v. FergusonOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- State v. WoodardsOhio Supreme Court · 1966
- Milks v. McIverNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Ravo v. RogatnickNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- State v. ChampionOhio Supreme Court · 1924
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by269 opinions
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Horton v. Harwick Chemical Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
- Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. Thompson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- Cantrell v. GAF Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993
264 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.