Legal Opinion

State v. Herzing

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 1985No. Nos. 84-1344 and 84-1405PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

The causes sub judice have been certified for disposition without the benefit of an appellate court review of the issue on the merits, i.e., whether the trial court acted properly in admitting the results of the intoxilyzer tests performed on both appellants.

In DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 189 [23 O.O.3d 210], this court stated at 192:

“* * * [I]t is a fundamental tenet of judicial review in Ohio that courts should decide cases on the merits. See, e.g., Cobb v. Cobb (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 124 [16 0.0.3d 145]. Judicial discretion must be carefully — and cautiously —…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. DeHart v. Aetna Life InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Cobb v. CobbOhio Supreme Court · 1980

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Barksdale v. Van's Auto Sales, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Hawkins v. Marion Correctional InstituteOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. GwinOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Leotta v. Great Lakes Pain Mgt. Ctr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
  5. City of Mansfield v. Gierhart, Unpublished Decision (1-23-2002)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2002

1 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