Arpin v. Consol. Rail Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Arpin v. Consol. Rail Co.

2017 Ohio 644, 69 N.E.3d 752, 148 Ohio St. 3d 1414

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 23, 2017

Docket2017-0171

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 Ohio 644 (Arpin v. Consol. Rail 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

Arpin v. Consol. Rail Co., 2017 Ohio 644, 69 N.E.3d 752, 148 Ohio St. 3d 1414 (Ohio 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Cuyahoga App. No. 104279, 2016-Ohio-8313. This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal.

Upon consideration of the motion for admission pro hac vice of Dan Himmelfarb, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted. Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days of the date of this entry.

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

Cuyahoga App. No. 104279, 2016-Ohio-8313. This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal.

Upon consideration of the motion for admission pro hac vice of Dan Himmelfarb, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted. Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days of the date of this entry.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 Ohio 644, 69 N.E.3d 752, 148 Ohio St. 3d 1414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arpin-v-consol-rail-co-ohio-2017.