Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Ohio Supreme Court, 2006

Wachovia National Bank of Delaware, N.A. v. Maenle

Wachovia National Bank of Delaware, N.A. v. Maenle
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided August 9, 2006 · Connor, Donnell, Lanzinger, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton
110 Ohio St. 3d 1240

Wachovia National Bank of Delaware, N.A. v. Maenle

Opinion of the Court

{¶ 1} The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently accepted.

{¶ 2} The court orders that the opinion of the court of appeals may not be cited as authority except by the parties inter se.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents.

Dissenting Opinion

Pfeifer, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 3} I would reverse the decision of the court of appeals and reinstate the decision of the trial court. I would base my decision on R.C. 2317.02, which governs privileged communications, not on Hearn v. Rhay (E.D.Wash. 1975), 68 F.R.D. 574. I dissent.

Lynch & White and Richard S. Lynch, urging reversal for amicus curiae Richard S. Lynch. Buckingham, Lucal, McGookey & Zeiher Co., L.P.A., and John R. Ball, urging reversal for amicus curiae John R. Ball.

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

↑