Legal Opinion

Berk v. Matthews

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 29, 1990No. 89-212PublishedCited by 403 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

I

It is the initial contention of appellant that the court of appeals erred in reversing the judgment below because a potential juror should have been removed for cause.4 This court has previously observed that the decision to disqualify a juror for bias is a discretionary function of the trial court. See Maddex v. Columber (1926), *169114 Ohio St. 178, 183, 151 N.E. 56, 57. See, also, State v. Bedford (1988), 39 Ohio St. 3d 122, 128, 529 N.E. 2d 913, 920. Where a trial court is vested with such authority, reversal on appeal is justified only if its exercise thereof constitutes an abuse of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Lorain City School District Board of Education v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State v. BedfordOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Holcomb v. HolcombOhio Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by403 opinions

  1. State v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State v. MadrigalOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State v. McNamaraOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
  4. In re Jane Doe 1Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  5. State v. HerringOhio Supreme Court · 2002

398 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