Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson

Ohio Supreme Court

Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson

852 N.E.2d 1212, 110 Ohio St. 3d 1462

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson. Read the opinion of the Court — 116 Ohio St. 3d 468 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided August 23, 2006·No. 2006-1212·Published

Opinion

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, No. 3:06 CV 40010. On review of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII(6). The court will answer the following questions:

1. “Is Ohio Revised Code {2315.18, as amended by Senate Bill 80, effective, April 7, 2005, unconstitutional on the grounds as stated by the Plaintiffs?”

3. “Is Ohio Revised Code {2315.20, as amended by Senate Bill 80, effective, April 7, 2005, unconstitutional on the grounds as stated by the Plaintiffs?”

4. “Is Ohio Revised Code {2315.21, as amended by Senate Bill 80, effective, April 7, 2005, unconstitutional on the grounds as stated by the Plaintiffs?”

O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., would also answer the second certified question. Pfeifer, J., dissents. Resnick, J., not participating.

On motion for admission pro hac vice of Robert S. Peck and Stephen B. Pershing by Janet G. Abaray. Motion granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, No. 3:06 CV 40010. On review of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII(6). The court will answer the following questions:

1. “Is Ohio Revised Code {2315.18, as amended by Senate Bill 80, effective, April 7, 2005, unconstitutional on the grounds as stated by the Plaintiffs?”

3. “Is Ohio Revised Code {2315.20, as amended by Senate Bill 80, effective, April 7, 2005, unconstitutional on the grounds as stated by the Plaintiffs?”

4. “Is Ohio Revised Code {2315.21, as amended by Senate Bill 80, effective, April 7, 2005, unconstitutional on the grounds as stated by the Plaintiffs?”

O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., would also answer the second certified question. Pfeifer, J., dissents. Resnick, J., not participating.

On motion for admission pro hac vice of Robert S. Peck and Stephen B. Pershing by Janet G. Abaray. Motion granted.

Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 852 N.E.2d 1212, 110 Ohio St. 3d 1462 (Ohio 2006).

Pincite

852 N.E.2d 1212 (Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.