General Verdict

• State v. Brown, (Ohio 2011)

rape – sexual battery – sufficiency – computer – ineffective assistance – allocution – continuous course of conduct – general verdict

• Ohio Supreme Court

• General Verdict

A decision by a jury that determines which side in a particular controversy wins, and in some cases, the amount of money in damage...

• West's Encyclopedia of American Law
• Fri–Jam

• Cooper v. Moran, (Ohio 2011)

CIVIL - personal injury; no dispute on liability; new trial; Civ.R. 59; inadequate damages; weight of the evidence; contrary to law; general verdict; interrogatories; economic damages; no pain and suffering awarded; evidence of suffering; dispositive medical testimony; no de minimis.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• The Cross V. The Court ; Europe Struggles Over Distinction Between Religion and Secularism

In Lautsi v. Italy, a chamber of the European Court on Human Rights (ECHR) banned the display of the cross in school classrooms, arguing that such a display was a violation of religious freedom and of a parent's right to educate his children. In addition, the court awarded the petitioner 5,000 euros in nonpecuniary damages. Whether the unusual verdict was motivated by animus or disdain toward religion in general, or against the Catholic Church in particular, is uncertain. The decision did, however, imply an obligation to impose strict secularism in Europe. The Lautsi v. Italy decision caused a worldwide stir for several reasons. First, the court inexplicably departed from its previous case law on the "margin of appreciation" doctrine, according to which such complex and delicate matters...

• The Washington Times
• December 24, 2010

• Small Firm Lawyer Wins $70.5 Million in 'Textbook' Products Liability Trial in Oregon

A small firm lawyer representing two helicopter pilots has won a $70.5 million verdict against General Electric, the maker of the copter's twin engines. The co-pilots were commanding a Sikorsky S-61 and shuttling firefighters in the middle of a forest blaze on the border of California and Oregon in 2008 when they crashed. Nine people died, including one of the pilots, in the deadliest firefighter aviation crash in U.S. history.

• Lawyers USA
• April 17, 2012

• I Was Thinking: Bonds Deserves Obstructed View of Cooperstown

I was thinking: The general consensus on the knotty Barry Bonds verdict (guilty only on obstruction of justice) is that his candidacy for the Hall of Fame is more muddled than ever.

• New Haven Register
• April 18, 2011

• Wood v. Harborside Healthcare, (Ohio 2012)

Trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial where jury initially rendered general verdict for plaintiff, but after court sent jury back three times for further deliberations, it rendered judgment for defendant; judge advised of but failed to correct erroneous interrogatory instruction prior to deliberations, and upon sending jury back to deliberate further, did not read or explain interrogatories or verdict forms to jury and did not provide jury with new interrogatories but handwrote change on the form; despite judge’s conclusion, not apparent that jury’s initial verdict for plaintiff and interrogatory answers were inconsistent; thus, significant irregularities in jury deliberations denied plaintiff a fair trial.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Prymas v. Kassai, (Ohio 2006)

Easement by estoppel; Evid.R. 411; indemnity agreement; jury instructions, general verdict.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Stephenson v. Upper Valley Family Care, Inc., (Ohio 2010)

Trial court erred in allowing defendant-physicians to argue that their delay in diagnosing plaintiff with cystic fibrosis did not cause any loss of life expectancy during retrial on damages only. The jury in the first trial entered a general verdict in favor of plaintiff, and the jury specifically found in an interrogatory that defendants had proximately caused plaintiff’s “claimed injuries.” Judgment reversed and matter remanded for a new trial on damages for reduced life expectancy only.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• McCabe v. Sitar, (Ohio 2008)

Personal injury claim; expert witness testimony may be rebutted by non-expert testimony, by other documentary evidence, or by the expert’s own contradictory testimony; Civ.R. 49(A) requires a general verdict.

• Ohio Supreme Court