Legal Opinion

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Astorhurst Land Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 24, 1985No. 83-1968PublishedCited by 65 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

In presenting its case to this court, CEI argues that specific jury instructions are no longer required to be given by a trial court in that Civ. R. 51(A) has abolished such instructions, and that the law applicable to the case is to be set forth by the trial court in its general charge to the jury. Appellant essentially contends that in a land appropriation action involving a partial taking, a sufficient charge is one which generally informs the jury that the property owner is entitled to be compensated for any loss in value to the residue of his property caused by the taking as well as the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Presley v. City of NorwoodOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Smith v. FlesherOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Reichert v. IngersollOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Washington Fidelity National Ins. v. HerbertOhio Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Masheter v. BrewerOhio Supreme Court · 1974

3Cited by65 opinions

  1. State v. SchiebelOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Goldfuss v. DavidsonOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. LeFort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Cromer v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Hayward v. Summa Health System/Akron City HospitalOhio Supreme Court · 2014

60 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