Armstrong v. Best Buy Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Armstrong v. Best Buy Co.

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

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 2002

Docket02-367

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 765 N.E.2d 878 (Armstrong v. Best Buy Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

765 N.E.2d 878, 95 Ohio St. 3d 1411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-best-buy-co-ohio-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack