Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Medical Malpractice - Statute Of Limitations - Foreign Objects - The Adoption Of The Discovery Rule - Legislative Or Judicial Prerogative? Melnyk V. Cleveland Clinic, Alan J. Sobol Aug 2015

Medical Malpractice - Statute Of Limitations - Foreign Objects - The Adoption Of The Discovery Rule - Legislative Or Judicial Prerogative? Melnyk V. Cleveland Clinic, Alan J. Sobol

Akron Law Review

The rationale of the Court was that Melnyk could be distinguished with the recent case of Wyler v. Tripi, which held that a cause of action for medical malpractice accrues at the latest when the physician-patient relationship terminates, and which also recognized the legislature's authority to act in this area, on the basis that Wyler was not a foreign object case. Therefore, the Court felt it need not disturb the Wyler holding and could nevertheless hold the failure to remove the foreign objects in Melnyk was negligence as a matter of law and that equity and public policy require …


The Recent Amendment To Ohio Revised Code Section 2317.48, Kim M. Aumiller Jul 2015

The Recent Amendment To Ohio Revised Code Section 2317.48, Kim M. Aumiller

Akron Law Review

Revised Code § 2317.48 was designed to enable a plaintiff to obtain information necessary to the drafting of a complaint. This discovery statute is one of the few statutes which was not repealed with the enactment of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure in 1970.

What one will not find, however, is the precise procedure to be followed in utilizing this discovery action. The procedural statutes which existed in the Revised Code were repealed upon enactment of the Civil Rules. Since then it has been difficult to know which procedural rules apply to Revised Code § 2317.48. Before the enactment …


Ethical Responsibility And Legal Liability Of Lawyers For Failure To Institute Or Monitor Litigation Holds, Nathan M. Crystal Jun 2015

Ethical Responsibility And Legal Liability Of Lawyers For Failure To Institute Or Monitor Litigation Holds, Nathan M. Crystal

Akron Law Review

The ethical and legal basis for subjecting counsel to discipline or liability for failing to initiate or implement litigation holds in connection with ESI exists. Recent important cases, while not imposing discipline or liability on counsel, have continued to lay the ground work for such liability. ...Cases in which counsel are held liable for damages to their clients or subject to discipline for failing to comply with well established ESI discovery obligations will not be long in coming as the new approach to winning litigation through discovery continues to develop.


"Just A Bit Outside!": Proportionality In Federal Discovery And The Institutional Capacity Of The Federal Courts, Bernadette Bollas Genetin Jun 2015

"Just A Bit Outside!": Proportionality In Federal Discovery And The Institutional Capacity Of The Federal Courts, Bernadette Bollas Genetin

Akron Law Faculty Publications

This Article focuses on pending amendments to Rule 26(b)(1), the scope-of-discovery provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Proposed Rule 26(b)(1) would authorize parties to obtain discovery of “any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense” if that information is also “proportional to the needs of the case,” based on enumerated proportionality factors – “the importance of the issues at state in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the …


"Just A Bit Outside!": Proportionality In Federal Discovery And The Institutional Capacity Of The Federal Courts, Bernadette Bollas Genetin Jan 2015

"Just A Bit Outside!": Proportionality In Federal Discovery And The Institutional Capacity Of The Federal Courts, Bernadette Bollas Genetin

Bernadette Bollas Genetin

This Article focuses on pending amendments to Rule 26(b)(1), the scope-of-discovery provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Proposed Rule 26(b)(1) would authorize parties to obtain discovery of “any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense” if that information is also “proportional to the needs of the case,” based on enumerated proportionality factors – “the importance of the issues at state in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the …