Ohio Supreme Court, 2014

Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories

Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided May 16, 2014
138 Ohio St. 3d 1499; 8 N.E.3d 967

Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories

Opinion of the Court

Franklin App. No. 11AP-996, 2013-Ohio-1675. This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal.

Upon consideration of the motion for admission pro hac vice of James F. Hurst, Derek J. Sarafa, Steffen N. Johnson, and Samantha Maxfield, it is ordered by the court that the motion is denied for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02(B)(1), which permits pro hac vice admission only on motion of the attorney seeking admission.

Counsel may file renewed motions for pro hac vice admission that comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02(B)(1) no later than 30 days from the date of this entry.

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