Ohio Supreme Court, 1987

Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co.

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided December 23, 1987 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright

34 Ohio St. 3d 602; 517 N.E.2d 544; 1987 Ohio LEXIS 445

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.