Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co.

Ohio Supreme Court December 23, 1987

Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 34 Ohio St. 3d 602 (Ohio 1987)

517 N.E.2d 544; 1987 Ohio LEXIS 445

Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright

Opinion of the Court

This cause (court of appeals Nos. E-84-27 and E-86-68) is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Holmes and Wright, JJ., dissent. Douglas, J., not participating.

Dissenting Opinion

Wright, J.,

dissenting. After a careful analysis of the record and the applicable case law, I feel that this case deserves our careful and comprehensive consideration and opinion. This court repeatedly rejected discretionary review and a motion for stay of this matter (case No. 86-729) by a three to three vote, one vote abstaining. Thus, I must dissent.

Holmes, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

Reference

Full Case Name: Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Company
Status: Published