Conley v. Faurecia Exhaust Systems, Inc.

936 N.E.2d 960, 127 Ohio St. 3d 122
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 2, 2010·No. No. 2010-1192·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Pettiford v. Aggarwal, 126 Ohio St.3d 413, 2010-Ohio-3237, 934 N.E.2d 913, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with Pettiford v. Aggarwal.

Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent and would not accept the discretionary appeal.

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

Conley v. Faurecia Exhaust Systems, Inc., 936 N.E.2d 960, 127 Ohio St. 3d 122 (Ohio 2010).

936 N.E.2d 960 (Conley v. Faurecia Exhaust Systems, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Conley v. Faurecia Exhaust Sys., Inc.
2011 Ohio 4452 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
Conley v. Faurecia Exhaust Sys., Inc.
2010 Ohio 5272 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)