Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Rohde v. Farmer
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided September 23, 1970No. 69-534Published
1Concurrence
*89The concurring opinion of
Taft, C. J.
(also concurred in by Schneider and Brown, JJ.), anticipated those questions, stating:
“Section 2321.17, Revised Code, as amended in 1957, requires a trial court to specify a valid reason for granting a new trial. If that court does not specify such a reason in granting a new trial, its order can no longer indicate that the new trial might have been granted for a reason wholly within the discretion of the trial court, as on the weight of the evidence. Thus, even if we pay lip service to what is left of the law as announced in Green v. Acacia Mutual Life Ins.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Hamden Lodge No. 517 v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
- Smith v. FlesherOhio Supreme Court · 1967
- Smith v. Times Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Holland v. BrownUtah Supreme Court · 1964
- Klever v. Reid Bros. Express, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1951
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.