Legal Opinion

Wagner v. Roche Laboratories

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1996No. 95-1209PublishedCited by 107 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.

This case requires us to interpret Civ.R. 50(A)(4) and to apply the standards contained in that rule to appellant’s claims of failure to warn, in order to determine whether appellant created a jury question sufficient to overcome appellees’ motion for a directed verdict. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the trial court properly applied Civ.R. 50(A)(4) and correctly denied appellees’ motion for a directed verdict. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, and remand this cause to the court of appeals for further proceedings.

Civ.R. 50(A)(4) provides:

“When a motion for a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Strother v. HutchinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Posin v. A. B. C. Motor Court Hotel, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1996

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by107 opinions

  1. Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Groob v. KeyBankOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Jarupan v. HannaOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Apel v. KatzOhio Supreme Court · 1998

102 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