Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
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)
Judges

FORD ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. TALLEY MACHINERY CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLEES.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court on authority of Hyde v. Reynoldsville Casket Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 240, 626 N.E.2d 75.

A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.

MOYER, C.J., concurs separately.

WRIGHT, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Hyde v. Reynoldsville Casket Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 240, 246-250, 626 N.E.2d 75, 79-81.

MOYER, C.J., concurring separately.

I concur separately in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As stated in Justice Wright's dissent in Hyde v. Reynoldsville Casket Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 240, 246-250, 626 N.E.2d 75, 79-81, I do not agree with the law announced in the majority decision. Nevertheless, it is the law on the issue in the above-styled case. As I believe all parties should receive equal application of the law announced by this court, and only for that reason, I concur in the judgment entry.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FORD v. TALLEY MACH. CORP
(Mar 23, 1994)