Legal Opinion

Schulte v. Schulte

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 1994No. Nos. 93-1588 and 93-1745PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

The first issue the court must address is whether the trial court used the correct standard to determine that Elizabeth was not competent to testify under Evid. R. 601(A). Evid. R. 601 provides: “Every person is competent to be a witness except: (A) Those of unsound mind, and children under ten years of age, who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts and transactions respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly.”

This court recently has clarified what a trial court must consider in making a competency determination under Evid. R. 601(A): “In determining…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State v. BostonOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State v. FrazierOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Board of Commissioners v. City of LebanonOhio Supreme Court · 1989

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. AllardOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. SaidOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State v. RizerOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. Davis v. Ocwen Federal Savings Bank, FSB (In Re Nick Haviaras)District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2001
  5. State v. AllardOhio Supreme Court · 1996

6 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