Nozik v. McDonald, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Nozik v. McDonald, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided June 25, 1999·No. Nos. 97-L-235 and 97-L-252·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part, and enter judgment in part for appellant. See Opinion and Judgment Entry. [FORD] (CHRISTLEY) (O'NEILL)

MISCELLANEOUS:

In reviewing a claim of judicial misconduct, there is a presumption that the trial judge is unbiased and free of prejudice. The party asserting judicial misconduct bears the burden of rebutting this presumption and showing resulting prejudice.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS:

The general rule is that a party may not argue on appeal an erroneous jury instruction unless it was properly objected to at trial.

PREJUDMENT INTEREST/ATTORNEY FEES:

Attorney fees may be awarded when there has been a finding of actual malice and an actual award of punitive damages.

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part, and enter judgment in part for appellant. See Opinion and Judgment Entry. [FORD] (CHRISTLEY) (O'NEILL)

MISCELLANEOUS:

In reviewing a claim of judicial misconduct, there is a presumption that the trial judge is unbiased and free of prejudice. The party asserting judicial misconduct bears the burden of rebutting this presumption and showing resulting prejudice.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS:

The general rule is that a party may not argue on appeal an erroneous jury instruction unless it was properly objected to at trial.

PREJUDMENT INTEREST/ATTORNEY FEES:

Attorney fees may be awarded when there has been a finding of actual malice and an actual award of punitive damages.

Nozik v. McDonald, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999), (Ohio Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Nozik v. McDonald, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999) (Nozik v. McDonald, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.