Legal Opinion · Dissent

Tokles & Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemnity Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1992No. 91-2384Published

1DissentHerbert R. Brown, J.

I dissent because the majority’s decision confuses the law which governs the qualification of an expert to testify concerning property values.

The standard for testifying on the value of property was well established before today’s decision. The value of property is a matter of opinion. Before one may give opinion testimony, one must be qualified as an expert. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chrysler Corp. (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 151, 159-160, 65 O.O.2d 374, 378-379, 304 N.E.2d 891, 896-897; 1 McCormick, Evidence (4 Ed. Strong Ed.1992) 41-53, Sections 11 and 12. Experts must be qualified in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State Auto Mutual Ins. v. Chrysler Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Bishop v. East Ohio Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
  3. City of Akron v. Hardgrove Enterprises, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1973
  4. Marlie Trading, Inc. v. Biggs Boiler Works Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API