Williams v. O'Brien

Ohio Supreme Court

Williams v. O'Brien

1995 Ohio 276, 72 Ohio St. 3d 288

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 7, 1995

Docket1993-0111

StatusPublished

This text of 1995 Ohio 276 (Williams v. O'Brien) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. O'Brien, 1995 Ohio 276, 72 Ohio St. 3d 288 (Ohio 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 72 Ohio St.3d 288.]

WILLIAMS, EXR., APPELLANT, v. O'BRIEN ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Williams v. O'Brien, 1995-Ohio-276.] Evidence—Treatise may be used for impeachment purposes to demonstrate that expert witness is either unaware of the text or unfamiliar with its contents— Substance of treatise employed only to impeach credibility of expert witness who has relied upon treatise. (No. 93-111—Submitted April 25, 1995—Decided June 7, 1995.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 12344. __________________ John H. Metz, for appellant. Jenks, Surdyk & Cowdrey Co., L.P.A., and Robert F. Cowdrey, for appellees Paul E. O'Brien and Paul E. O'Brien, M.D., Inc. Bieser, Greer & Landis, Howard P. Krisher and Konrad Kircher, for appellee Kettering Medical Center, d.b.a. Sycamore Hospital. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Stinson v. England (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 451, 633 N.E.2d 532. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur. PFEIFER, J., dissents. __________________ PFEIFER, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} We should add the learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule in Ohio Evid.R. 803, so that it mirrors its federal counterpart, Fed.Evid.R. 803(18). I, accordingly, dissent. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 72 Ohio St.3d 288.]

WILLIAMS, EXR., APPELLANT, v. O'BRIEN ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Williams v. O'Brien, 1995-Ohio-276.] Evidence—Treatise may be used for impeachment purposes to demonstrate that expert witness is either unaware of the text or unfamiliar with its contents— Substance of treatise employed only to impeach credibility of expert witness who has relied upon treatise. (No. 93-111—Submitted April 25, 1995—Decided June 7, 1995.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 12344. __________________ John H. Metz, for appellant. Jenks, Surdyk & Cowdrey Co., L.P.A., and Robert F. Cowdrey, for appellees Paul E. O'Brien and Paul E. O'Brien, M.D., Inc. Bieser, Greer & Landis, Howard P. Krisher and Konrad Kircher, for appellee Kettering Medical Center, d.b.a. Sycamore Hospital. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Stinson v. England (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 451, 633 N.E.2d 532. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur. PFEIFER, J., dissents. __________________ PFEIFER, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} We should add the learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule in Ohio Evid.R. 803, so that it mirrors its federal counterpart, Fed.Evid.R. 803(18). I, accordingly, dissent. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Ohio 276, 72 Ohio St. 3d 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-obrien-ohio-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack