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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Law

87-3085-Doc-22: Palestine Information Office V. Shultz (D.D.C.), Files Of D.C. District Court Judge Charles R. Richey Dec 1978

87-3085-Doc-22: Palestine Information Office V. Shultz (D.D.C.), Files Of D.C. District Court Judge Charles R. Richey

Judge Charles R. Richey Archive

No abstract provided.


Appeal No. 0025: Pete Karas And Wanda Karas V. State Of Ohio, Acting By And Through The Chief Of The Division Of Oil And Gas Department Of Natural Resources, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review Jul 1978

Appeal No. 0025: Pete Karas And Wanda Karas V. State Of Ohio, Acting By And Through The Chief Of The Division Of Oil And Gas Department Of Natural Resources, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Adjudication Order No. 229


The Ohio Bill Of Rights, Paul C. Giannelli Jan 1978

The Ohio Bill Of Rights, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Eyewitness Identifications, Paul C. Giannelli Jan 1978

Eyewitness Identifications, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Polygraph Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli Jan 1978

Polygraph Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Credibility Of Witnesses, Paul C. Giannelli Jan 1978

Credibility Of Witnesses, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


The Proposed Ohio Rules Of Evidence: The General Assembly, Evidence, And Rulemaking, Paul C. Giannelli Jan 1978

The Proposed Ohio Rules Of Evidence: The General Assembly, Evidence, And Rulemaking, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

The Ohio Supreme Court has twice promulgated and the Ohio General Assembly has twice disapproved the proposed Ohio Rules of Evidence. Moreover, the office of the Attorney General has opposed the proposed Rules in an article published in this review. The author examines the arguments against the Rules and concludes that the supreme court has the constitutional authority to prescribe most rules of evidence and that the General Assembly should accept the proposed Rules with amendments.