In re Appropriation of Property of Maiden

Lorain County Court of Common Pleas

In re Appropriation of Property of Maiden

268 N.E.2d 824, 26 Ohio Misc. 19, 55 Ohio Op. 2d 64, 1970 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 286

CourtLorain County Court of Common Pleas

DecidedDecember 9, 1970

DocketNo. 73056

StatusPublished

This text of 268 N.E.2d 824 (In re Appropriation of Property of Maiden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Lorain County Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Appropriation of Property of Maiden, 268 N.E.2d 824, 26 Ohio Misc. 19, 55 Ohio Op. 2d 64, 1970 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 286 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Pincura, J.

In appropriation cases full pre-trial disclosure of expert witnesses, appraisers’ opinions and the details upon which they are based is required if the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure are to accomplish their purpose and this court determines that Rule 26(B)-4 extends to any matter not privileged which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. The testimony of appraisers is the crux of the trial and full disclosure of their opinions and the foundation upon which they rest are essential to adequate litigation, subject to the court’s power to control the timing, scope and other protective steps. However, it is to he remembered that what is “Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander,” either or both litigants can take advantage of this rule. Therefore, the motion of the property owner herein is sustained, and is entitled to (a) identity of expert witnesses, (b) subject matter for expert to testify upon, (c) names of persons who have inspected the property, (d) dates of inspections, (e) all appraisal reports and (f) all answers to be served upon the party interrogator on or before date of pre-trial and subject to further order of court. (See United States v. Meyer (1968), 398 F. 2d 66.) The Meyer case is directly in point, and though it is persuasive authority only, this court feels that it represents the better view.

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

Pincura, J.

In appropriation cases full pre-trial disclosure of expert witnesses, appraisers’ opinions and the details upon which they are based is required if the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure are to accomplish their purpose and this court determines that Rule 26(B)-4 extends to any matter not privileged which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. The testimony of appraisers is the crux of the trial and full disclosure of their opinions and the foundation upon which they rest are essential to adequate litigation, subject to the court’s power to control the timing, scope and other protective steps. However, it is to he remembered that what is “Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander,” either or both litigants can take advantage of this rule. Therefore, the motion of the property owner herein is sustained, and is entitled to (a) identity of expert witnesses, (b) subject matter for expert to testify upon, (c) names of persons who have inspected the property, (d) dates of inspections, (e) all appraisal reports and (f) all answers to be served upon the party interrogator on or before date of pre-trial and subject to further order of court. (See United States v. Meyer (1968), 398 F. 2d 66.) The Meyer case is directly in point, and though it is persuasive authority only, this court feels that it represents the better view.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 N.E.2d 824, 26 Ohio Misc. 19, 55 Ohio Op. 2d 64, 1970 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-appropriation-of-property-of-maiden-ohctcompllorain-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack