Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Blair v. Balraj

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 18, 1994No. 93-1353PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

In her first proposition of law, appellant argues that R.C. Chapter 313 does not authorize the coroner to draw legal conclusions from the facts she ascertains, citing State v. Cousin (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 32, 5 OBR 34, 449 N.E.2d 32, in which the Court of Appeals for Seneca County, construing R.C. 313.19, stated:

“The mode or manner can refer to the surrounding physical mechanisms associated with the death, as for example, the thrust of a knife, the course of a bullet or the blow of a blunt instrument. Such things are intimately associated with…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Fenske v. McGovernOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Perez v. ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Vargo v. Travelers InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. State v. CousinOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
  5. Goldsby v. GerberOhio Court of Appeals · 1987

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Kremer v. CoxOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  2. Perez v. ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. CostellOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
  4. State v. HardinOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
  5. State ex rel. Brust v. MohrOhio Court of Appeals · 2018

8 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