Armstrong v. Best Buy Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Armstrong v. Best Buy Co.

765 N.E.2d 878, 95 Ohio St. 3d 1411

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 4, 2002·No. 02-367·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Lorain App. No. 01CA007848. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry dated February 14, 2002:

“Appellant has proposed that a conflict exists between the districts on the following issue: Whether Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 677 [693 N.E.2d 271], abrogated the open and obvious doctrine as a complete bar to recovery and instead required that comparative negligence be applied to determine liability?”

Moyer, C.J., dissents.

The conflict case is Schindler v. Gale’s Superior Supermarket, Inc. (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 146, 754 N.E.2d 298.

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

Lorain App. No. 01CA007848. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry dated February 14, 2002:

“Appellant has proposed that a conflict exists between the districts on the following issue: Whether Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 677 [693 N.E.2d 271], abrogated the open and obvious doctrine as a complete bar to recovery and instead required that comparative negligence be applied to determine liability?”

Moyer, C.J., dissents.

The conflict case is Schindler v. Gale’s Superior Supermarket, Inc. (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 146, 754 N.E.2d 298.

Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 765 N.E.2d 878, 95 Ohio St. 3d 1411 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

765 N.E.2d 878 (Armstrong v. Best Buy Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related