Arrington v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
0’CONNOK, J.
{¶ 1} In this appeal involving an asbestos-related workers’ compensation claim, we address the propriety of a case-management order requiring all testimony to be presented by videotape rather than through live testimony before the jury. We hold that the right to trial by jury in claims brought pursuant to R.C. 4123.512 is conferred by the General Assembly through statute and does not arise from Section 5, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. We further hold that although the preferred practice is to permit parties to testify live before the fact-finder, the trial court’s order that…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Mountain Timber Company v. State of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
- Walker v. SauvinetSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Colgrove v. BattinSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Arbino v. Johnson & JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. LoweOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Services, L.L.C.Ohio Supreme Court · 2010
- STOLZ v. J & B STEEL ERECTORS, INC., Et Al.Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
- State ex rel. Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.