Legal Opinion
Johnson v. Porter
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 5, 1984No. 83-1664PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
This matter presents the issue of whether R.C. 2317.03, the “dead man’s” statute, has been either totally or partially abrogated by the adoption of Evid. R. 601 and 804(B)(5).
In pertinent part, R.C. 2317.03 states as follows:
“A party shall not testify when the adverse party is the guardian or trustee of either a deaf and dumb or an insane person or of a child of a deceased person, or is an executor or administrator, or claims or defends as heir, grantee, assignee, devisee, or legatee of a deceased person * * *r i>>1
*60Evid. R. 601 provides that “[e]very person is competent to be a witness” with…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- St. John v. LoflandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- Bilikam v. BilikamOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
- State v. WallerOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- Parks v. FordOhio Supreme Court · 1965
- Canary v. WallaceOhio Supreme Court · 1971
3Cited by17 opinions
- State v. BostonOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Testa v. RobertsOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
- Eberly v. A-P Controls, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
- Schoenvogel v. Venator Group Retail, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2004
- Bobko v. SagenOhio Court of Appeals · 1989
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.