Colombi v. Silver

Ohio Supreme Court

Colombi v. Silver

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 347

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 10, 1964·No. No. 38305·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Both in the argument on the motion to certify and in the argument of this case on the merits, the principal question raised was the propriety of counsel for appellee including in his argument to the jury what is commonly referred to as the per diem method of evaluation of damages for pain and suffering. However, an examination of the bill of exceptions shows that that question is not before us.

An examination of the other errors assigned by appellant shows they are not well taken, and, therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Both in the argument on the motion to certify and in the argument of this case on the merits, the principal question raised was the propriety of counsel for appellee including in his argument to the jury what is commonly referred to as the per diem method of evaluation of damages for pain and suffering. However, an examination of the bill of exceptions shows that that question is not before us.

An examination of the other errors assigned by appellant shows they are not well taken, and, therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.

Colombi v. Silver, 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 347 (Ohio 1964).

Pincite

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 347 (Colombi v. Silver) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.