Mayhorn v. Pavey

16 Citing cases

  1. State v. Horton

    2007 Ohio 6469 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    Id. See, also, Mayhorn v. Pavey (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 189, 192-193, 8 OBR 258, 261-263, 456 N.E.2d 1222, 1226-1227, and Surman v. Ohio Pennsylvania Oil Gasoline Co. (1962), 116 Ohio App. 453, 480-494, 22 O.O.2d 292, 307-315, 183 N.E.2d 386, 404-414. The trial court is given the discretion to exclude such misleading questions from the evidence.

  2. Roth v. Roth

    65 Ohio App. 3d 768 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 80 times
    Holding no right of counsel in dissolution cases involving custody, because civil case between individual litigants

    Id. See, also, Mayhorn v. Pavey (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 189, 192-193, 8 OBR 258, 261-263, 456 N.E.2d 1222, 1226-1227, and Surman v. Ohio Pennsylvania Oil Gasoline Co. (1962), 116 Ohio App. 453, 480-494, 22 O.O.2d 292, 307-315, 183 N.E.2d 386, 404-414. The trial court is given the discretion to exclude such misleading questions from the evidence.

  3. Gagnet v. Downes

    Court of Appeals No. L-00-1282, Trial Court No. CI-98-4471 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2001)   Cited 2 times

    A motion for a directed verdict tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury. Mayhorn v. Pavey (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 189, 191, 8 OBR 258, 260, 456 N.E.2d 1222, 1226. Under this standard, the motion must be denied if there is substantial evidence upon which reasonable minds could come to different conclusions on the essential elements of the claim.

  4. Sowers v. Middletown Hosp

    89 Ohio App. 3d 572 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 15 times
    In Sowers, the plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendants as a result of the defendants' negligence during the labor and delivery of the plaintiffs' son. After a defense verdict, the plaintiffs appealed and argued that the trial court made erroneous rulings on challenges to jurors for cause.

    " Additionally, it is well established that an expert can base an opinion only on facts presented in a hypothetical question if evidence tending to establish those facts is admitted into evidence. Mayhorn v. Pavey (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 189, 8 OBR 258, 456 N.E.2d 1222, and cases cited therein. In the present case, appellants could not offer evidence that a pediatrician analyzed the circumstances prior to Richard's birth, as Drs.

  5. Lambert v. Shearer

    84 Ohio App. 3d 266 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 44 times
    Affirming the trial court's allowance of leading questions to a medical expert

    A motion for a directed verdict tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Mayhorn v. Pavey (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 189, 191, 8 OBR 258, 260, 456 N.E.2d 1222, 1225. The motion will be granted for plaintiff where the substantial evidence presented demonstrates that reasonable minds could only find in favor of plaintiff on the essential issues of the case.

  6. Donaldson v. N. Trading Co.

    82 Ohio App. 3d 476 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 57 times
    Stating that the rule prohibiting the stacking of one inference upon another "prohibits only the drawing of one inference solely and entirely from another inference, where that inference is unsupported by any additional facts or inferences drawn from other facts"

    A motion for a directed verdict tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury. Mayhorn v. Pavey (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 189, 191, 8 OBR 258, 260, 456 N.E.2d 1222, 1226. Under this standard, the motion must be denied if there is substantial evidence upon which reasonable minds could come to different conclusions on the essential elements of the claim.

  7. Sedgwick v. Kawasaki Cycleworks, Inc.

    71 Ohio App. 3d 117 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 6 times

    " In Mayhorn v. Pavey (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 189, 191-192, 8 OBR 258, 261, 456 N.E.2d 1222, 1226, this court noted that in instances where there is a conflict in the evidence relating to the existence of a fact which is material to the expert witnesses' forming an opinion, "* * * counsel propounding the hypothetical question is entitled to include as an assumed fact his version of the evidence on the disputed fact. It is then for the trier of the facts to resolve the factual dispute and, depending upon its findings, to determine what weight it will give to the opinion-answer.

  8. Camden v. Miller

    34 Ohio App. 3d 86 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 8 times

    Consideration of the sufficiency of the factual content of the hypothetical question is a factor in determining the weight to be given the opinion-answer. Mayhorn v. Pavey (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 189, 8 OBR 258, 456 N.E.2d 1222. Appellant's final argument concerns Leinen's statement that it was practically proven that appellant was the child's father.

  9. Shields v. Bureau of Workers' Comp.

    2023 Ohio 1368 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)

    that in the event the trier of the facts rejects these facts as not having been established by the evidence, it will then be warranted in rejecting the opinion also. Calvey v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 67417, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 2612, 3 (June 22, 1995), quoting Mayhorn v. Pavey, 8 Ohio App.3d 189, 191, 456 N.E.2d 1222 (10th Dist.1982).

  10. Zweifel v. Myers

    2020 Ohio 3308 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)

    The purpose of Evid.R. 703 is " 'to ensure that the trier of the facts is aware of the facts upon which the opinion rests, so that in the event the trier of the facts rejects these facts as not having been established by the evidence, it will then be warranted in rejecting the opinion also.' " Jarvis, supra, at ΒΆ 31, quoting Mayhorn v. Pavey, 8 Ohio App.3d 189, 191, 456 N.E. 2d 1222, (10th Dist.1982). Our review of the trial transcript demonstrates that most of Dr. Marazon's cross-examination testimony concentrated largely on the January 2, 2015 office visit and the July 2015 CT scan.