Skip to main content
· 4/1/2022

Gibson v. Soin

Citations

  • 2022 Ohio 1113

Syllabus

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding appellants' proposed medical expert, pursuant to Evid.R. 601(B)(5)(c). The trial court did not err in denying appellants' motion for a new trial. Judgments affirmed.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “Because more than three years had elapsed from the date of dissolution of [the corporation], the respondent became the owner of all that corporation’s real property by reason of being the corporation’s sole shareholder upon dissolution”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Epley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.