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

  1. Hamden Lodge No. 517 v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Smith v. FlesherOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Smith v. Times Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
  4. Holland v. BrownUtah Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Klever v. Reid Bros. Express, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1951

13 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