Home/Ohio Supreme Court/Cicco v. Stockmaster

Cicco v. Stockmaster

709 N.E.2d 172, 85 Ohio St. 3d 1467, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 1368
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedApril 28, 1999
Docket99-85
StatusPublished

This text of 709 N.E.2d 172 (Cicco v. Stockmaster) 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
Cicco v. Stockmaster, 709 N.E.2d 172, 85 Ohio St. 3d 1467, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 1368 (Ohio 1999).

Opinion

Huron App. No. H-98-016. Discretionary appeal allowed on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II.

Douglas, Bryant and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., would allow all propositions of law. Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent. Peggy Bryant, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
709 N.E.2d 172, 85 Ohio St. 3d 1467, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 1368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cicco-v-stockmaster-ohio-1999.