Ohio Supreme Court, 2000

Thompson v. Olinn

Thompson v. Olinn
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 7, 2000 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
89 Ohio St. 3d 94
Thompson v. Olinn

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

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.

Concurring in Part

Douglas, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. I would grant the motion for reconsideration and allow the discretionary appeal. I would then set a briefing schedule and assign the case for oral argument. I would not, at this. juncture, remand the cause to the trial court.

Opinion of the Court

The motion for reconsideration is granted.

*95The discretionary appeal is allowed.

The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 725 N.E.2d 261.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Douglas, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

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