Legal Opinion

Buckeye State Building & Loan Co. v. Schmidt

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 20, 1936No. 25761PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.

Assuming that the instant case presented questions of fact for the jury, did counsel for the parties by their behavior waive their right to a determination of such facts by the jury?

The following statement is made in 39 Ohio Jurisprudence, 877 and 878, Section 220:

“Although it may be regarded as settled in Ohio that where each party asks for a directed verdict in his favor and nothing further is said or done by them, a presumption arises that they intend to waive the right to a submission to a jury and consent to a decision by the court on the questions of fact involved as well as the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Manska v. San Benito Land Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1921
  2. Conkling v. Knights & Ladies of SecuritySupreme Court of Iowa · 1918
  3. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. LuthyOhio Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Sioux National Bank v. LundbergSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Bonacorso v. Camden Fire InsuranceNebraska Supreme Court · 1936

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Levick v. BonnellOhio Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Kern v. KernOhio Court of Appeals · 1955
  3. McDonough v. Community Traction Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1937
  4. Rea v. FornanOhio Court of Appeals · 1939
  5. Carter-Jones Lumber Co. v. EblenOhio Supreme Court · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API