Legal Opinion

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Westmeyer

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 1991No. 90-1704PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings of fact and recommendations of the board. Additionally, we find that the panel did not err in refusing to admit the results of the polygraph examinations. Relator did not agree to their admission as required by Souel, supra. See, also, State v. Jamison (1990), 49 Ohio St. 3d 182, 190, 552 *40N.E. 2d 180, 188. Moreover, we neither ordered the evidence admitted nor have we overruled Souel. We also reject respondent’s contention that the panel and board inappropriately considered respondent’s prior misconduct reported at Toledo Bar Assn. v. Westmeyer (1988), 35 Ohio St. 3d…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. JamisonOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Toledo Bar Ass'n v. WestmeyerOhio Supreme Court · 1988

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. MazerOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. MazerOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Columbus Bar Assn. v. ArmengauOhio Supreme Court · 2026

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API