Plaintiff in Error

• Plaintiff in Error

The unsuccessful party in a lawsuit who commences proceedings for appellate review of the action because a mistake or "error" has...

• West's Encyclopedia of American Law
• Mc–Pl

• Clinton v. Faurecia Exhaust Sys., Inc., (Ohio 2012)

Assuming for purposes of argument that the trial court erred in excluding an errata sheet and in failing to consider whether the plaintiff’s affidavit contradicted or supplemented his deposition testimony, neither error was prejudicial. Even if the substituted and added testimony is construed in plaintiff’s favor, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence indicating that summary judgment should not be granted in favor of the defendant. The trial court also applied proper summary judgment standards. Judgment Affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Townsend v. Dollar Gen. Corp., (Ohio 2010)

Affirming judgment entered in favor of plaintiff-appellee, and against defendant-appellant, in this slip and fall case. The evidence was sufficient to establish that the condition that caused the fall either was not open and obvious, or was open and obvious with attendant circumstances. Further: (1) there was no error in permitting the jury to award future medical expenses; (2) there was no error in precluding defendant-appellant from introducing into evidence plaintiff-appellee's MySpace pages; (3) and there was no prejudicial error in permitting plaintiff-appellee to introduce into evidence defendant-appellant's discovery responses.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Annie E. Yniestra, Defendant in Error. 21 Fla. 700,

In The SUPREME COURT, State OF FLORIDA. LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ANNI...

• Florida Supreme Court

• Hill v. State, (Ohio 2013)

The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment adjudicating the plaintiff to be a wrongfully imprisoned individual for purposes of Ohio's wrongful imprisonment compensation statutes. Plaintiff's earlier conviction for drug offenses had been reversed on appeal because plaintiff was found to have been the subject of an illegal search and seizure, resulting in his release from prison. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court that plaintiff had met all the statutory criteria warranting his adjudication as a wrongfully imprisoned individual. The General Assembly amended R.C. 2743.48 in 2003 to provide that a person was a wrongfully imprisoned individual if, along with other criteria, he had been released from prison as the result of an error in procedure. The fact that ...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Trutschel v. Kettering Med. Ctr., (Ohio 2009)

The trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff waived any error in connection with the trial court’s order disqualifying his trial attorney because the order was a final appealable order necessitating an immediate appeal. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Gibson v. Drainage Products, Inc., (Ohio 2002)

Plaintiff waived any error in submission of evidence by eliciting the evidence upon direct examination of witness.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• McPeck v. Smith, (Ohio 2012)

In admitting testimony of plaintiff in claim for damages to his car, trial court did not commit plain error. Record does not support defendant’s claim that trial court prevented her from presenting her side of the case. Affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Gibson v. Drainage Products, Inc., (Ohio 2002)

Plaintiff waived any error in submission of evidence by eliciting the evidence upon direct examination of witness.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• SFJV 2005, L.L.C. v. Ream, (Ohio 2010)

In this foreclosure action, the trial court properly determined that husband mortgaged his one-half interest in the real estate that he owned jointly with his wife when he initialed and signed the mortgage document securing the note obtained solely by his wife for the purchase of the property. Trial court did not commit prejudicial error in admitting the plaintiff’s documentary evidence at trial. Trial court did not commit prejudicial error when it confirmed the sale of the property, using a proposed entry submitted by the plaintiff, seven weeks after the return of the writ of execution. Judgment of foreclosure and judgment confirming the sale affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court