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
- Manska v. San Benito Land Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1921
- Conkling v. Knights & Ladies of SecuritySupreme Court of Iowa · 1918
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. LuthyOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Sioux National Bank v. LundbergSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1929
- Bonacorso v. Camden Fire InsuranceNebraska Supreme Court · 1936
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Levick v. BonnellOhio Supreme Court · 1940
- Kern v. KernOhio Court of Appeals · 1955
- McDonough v. Community Traction Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1937
- Rea v. FornanOhio Court of Appeals · 1939
- Carter-Jones Lumber Co. v. EblenOhio Supreme Court · 1958