Wilson v. Haimerl

Ohio Supreme Court September 10, 2003

Wilson v. Haimerl, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1541 (Ohio 2003)

795 N.E.2d 681

Allen, Allow, App, Connor, Donnell, Galatis, Hio, Hold, Holding, Ins, Johnson, Law, Moyer, Nos, Pfeifer, Proposition, Propositions, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

Opinion of the Court

Madison App. No. CA2002-08-017, 2003-0hio-1774. Discretionary appeal allowed on Proposition of Law No. I.

O’Connor, J., concurs but would also hold for the decision in 2002-1126 and 2002-1433, Allen v. Johnson, Wayne App. Nos. 01CA0046 and 01CA0047, 2002-0hio-3404. Moyer, C.J., concurs but would allow Proposition of Law No. I and hold for the decision in Allen; and would allow Proposition of Law No. II and hold for the decision in 2002-0932, Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, Summit App. No. 20784, 2002-0hio-1502. Lundberg Stratton and O’Donnell, JJ., concur but would allow all propositions of law without holding. Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

Reference

Status: Published