Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
740 N.E.2d 1111, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1411, 2001 Ohio LEXIS 85
Opinion
Hamilton App. Nos. C-990729, C-990814 and C-990815. On discretionary appeal. Appeal allowed.
On motion for admission pro hoc vice of James P. Dorr and Sarah L. Olson by Robert A. McMahon.
Motion granted.
On motion for admission pro hac vice of Harold Mayberry and Lawrence Greenwald et al. by Robert A. McMahon. Motion granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 740 N.E.2d 1111, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1411, 2001 Ohio LEXIS 85 (Ohio 2001).
740 N.E.2d 1111 (Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. City of Atlanta
560 S.E.2d 525 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2002)
Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.
28 P.3d 116 (California Supreme Court, 2001)