Legal Opinion

Rath v. Williamson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1992No. 91-845PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

Relator claims that the introduction of the blood test results into evidence would be in violation of this court’s decision in State v. Smorgala (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 222, 553 N.E.2d 672, in which this court established the inadmissibility of similar evidence under the physician-patient privilege.

In State, ex rel. Scoratow, v. Wood Cty. Common Pleas Court (1959), 170 Ohio St. 76, 9 O.O.2d 466, 162 N.E.2d 533, at paragraph three of the syllabus, we held:

“Such writ [prohibition] is not available for determination of the admissibility of evidence in a trial court having jurisdiction of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. SmorgalaOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State ex rel. Lambdin v. BrentonOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  3. State ex rel. Staton v. Common Pleas CourtOhio Supreme Court · 1965
  4. State v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1991

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Abner v. ElliottOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State ex rel. Butler County Children Services Board v. SageOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State ex rel. Herdman v. WatsonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State Ex Rel. Allstate Insurance v. GaulOhio Court of Appeals · 1999
  5. State Ex Rel. Corn v. RussoOhio Court of Appeals · 1999

4 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