Ohio Supreme Court, 1992

Taylor v. National Group of Companies, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided December 11, 1992 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

65 Ohio St. 3d 482; 605 N.E.2d 45

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

State Ex Rel. Haddox v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 2013)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Shimko (Ohio 2012)
Lincoln Manangement Co. v. Scruggs (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)
State v. Walker (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State v. Walker (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
Meyer v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Shay v. Shay (Ohio 2007)
State v. Heyward, Unpublished Decision (9-14-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, has certified the following question to us:

“May the plaintiff demand a jury trial of her claims under § 4112.99, where the gravamen of the claim is discrimination on the basis of sex?”

The certified question is answered in the affirmative. See Elek v. Huntington Natl. Bank (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 135, 573 N.E.2d 1056; and cf. Hoops v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 97, 553 N.E.2d 252.

*483Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur. Holmes and Wright, JJ., concur separately.

Concurring Opinion

Holmes, Judge,

concurring.

. Although I dissented in Elek v. Huntington Natl. Bank, and still personally adhere to the view espoused in such dissent, the policy of stare decisis prevails, and I must concur with the majority on that basis.

Wright, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.

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