Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

TRINOVA CORPORATION, APPELLEE, v. PILKINGTON BROTHERS, P.L.C. ET AL.; LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD COMPANY, INC. ET AL., APPELLANTS.

Defendants-appellants, Libbey-Owens-Ford Company and Pilkington Holdings, Inc., have filed with this court a motion to reconsider our September 14, 1994 decision (reported at 70 Ohio St.3d 271, 638 N.E.2d 572) in the above-captioned matter.

After consideration of appellants' motion, we will treat it as a motion for clarification and grant same to the extent that the first sentence of the third full paragraph appearing at page 277, 638 N.E.2d at 576, should read as follows:

"We are likewise unpersuaded by the argument that LOF was a third-party beneficiary of the contract executed by TRINOVA and Pilkington."

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.

A.W. SWEENEY and WRIGHT, JJ., dissent.

RESNICK, J., not participating.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

TRINOVA CORP. v. PILKINGTON BROS., P.L.C
(Nov 16, 1994)