Burwell v. American Edwards Labs

7 Citing cases

  1. Malone v. Courtyard by Marriott L.P.

    95 Ohio App. 3d 74 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 9 times

    Marriott argues that if the trial court did err, then any error was harmless as to plaintiff Malone, whom the jury found to be fifty-one percent negligent. This argument corresponds with Burwell v. Am. Edwards Labs. (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 73, 574 N.E.2d 1094, in which this court held: "* * * Absent concurrent compensatory damages, punitive damages are inappropriate and do not constitute a cause of action in and of themselves.

  2. Giannini-Baur v. Schwab Retirement Plan Servs.

    2010 Ohio 6424 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)

    In light of the verdict, the failure to submit the possibility of punitive damages and attorney's fees to the jury was harmless error. Burwell v. American Edwards Labs. (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 73, 78; Civ. R. 61. Giannini-Baur's

  3. Burns v. Prudn., Secr., Inc.

    2006 Ohio 3550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that venue change was properly denied when trial court allowed extensive voir dire and all but one of the prospective jurors who recalled reading the relevant news articles was excused for cause and the last was not challenged for cause by movant

    Instructions that, in their totality, are sufficiently clear to permit the jury to understand the relevant law will not be the cause of a reversal upon appeal. Burwell v. Am. Edwards Labs. (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 73, 79, 574 N.E.2d 1094. Whether the jury instructions correctly state the law is a question of law, which we review de novo.

  4. State v. Neptune

    Case No. 99CA25 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2000)   Cited 24 times
    Determining that exigent circumstances justified warrantless search where police only entered the home after the defendant herself told police that she would kill herself, the police confirmed that the residence was the defendant's home, and the police had a conversation with her through the front door when officers saw her inside swinging a knife before entering the home

    Instructions which, in their totality, are sufficiently clear to permit the jury to understand the relevant law will not be the cause of a reversal on appeal. Margroff at 177; Burwell v. American Edwards Labs. (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 73, 79; Yeager at 55. Whether the jury instructions correctly state the law is a question of law which we review de novo.

  5. Airborne Exp. v. Sys. Research Labs

    106 Ohio App. 3d 498 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 22 times
    Referring to defendant's evidence as "speculative"

    The ability of a trial court to entertain motions in limine lies within the court's inherent power and discretion to control the proceedings before it. Rich v. Quinn (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 102, 105, 13 OBR 119, 122-123, 468 N.E.2d 365, 369-370. Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's ruling with respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. LeForge v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 692, 701, 612 N.E.2d 1318, 1324; Burwell v. Am. Edwards Laboratories (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 73, 83, 574 N.E.2d 1094, 1100. In this case, the trial court granted appellee's motion in limine to exclude evidence of profits made by appellee from the sale of the flap STC to third parties.

  6. Estate of Baxter v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co.

    73 Ohio App. 3d 512 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 5 times

    A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence will not be reversed unless there is a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion. Burwell v. American Edwards Labs. (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 73, 83-84, 574 N.E.2d 1094, 1100-1101. Additionally, "[a] trial court has discretion to determine whether contested events or objects are sufficiently similar to other events or objects that evidence about the other events or objects has probative value. * * *" Babb v. Ford Motor Co. (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 174, 535 N.E.2d 676, paragraph two of the syllabus.

  7. Miller v. Hartford Hospital

    2005 Ct. Sup. 16621 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

    I am not sure how far a federal agency's notice regarding reporting of adverse events takes us on the issue of whether the provision of such valves is a product or a service for the purpose of applying product liability law. The plaintiffs refer in their brief to Burwell v. American Edwards Laboratory, 574 N.E.2d 1094 (Ohio App. 1989). This case, however, involves a porcine (pig) valve, and, though it was treated as a product in this case, there apparently was never an issue raised as to whether it should be a product or a service.