Copeco, Inc. v. Caley

Ohio Supreme Court

Copeco, Inc. v. Caley

630 N.E.2d 662, 69 Ohio St. 3d 79

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 27, 1994

DocketNo. 93-399

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 630 N.E.2d 662 (Copeco, Inc. v. Caley) 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

Copeco, Inc. v. Caley, 630 N.E.2d 662, 69 Ohio St. 3d 79 (Ohio 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

This cause is before this court upon the certification of the Court of Appeals for Stark County that its judgment conflicted with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Summit County in Prinz Office Equip. Co. v. Pesko (Jan. 31, 1990), Summit App. No. 14155, unreported, 1990 WL 7996.

Having examined Prinz Office Equip. Co. and the record in the present cause, we find that the judgments do not conflict. Furthermore, the court of appeals in certifying the case did not clearly set forth the rule of law upon which the alleged conflict exists. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 594, 613 N.E.2d 1032; Freeman v. Holzer Med. Ctr. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 601, 613 N.E.2d 1037; State v. Parobek (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 61, 550 N.E.2d 476; State v. Radar (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 112, 548 N.E.2d 210; Hays v. St. Elizabeth Hosp. Med. Ctr. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 60, 526 N.E.2d 307; Cook v. Mayfield (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 44, 523 N.E.2d 502; State v. Palider (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 68, 514 N.E.2d 873.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

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

This cause is before this court upon the certification of the Court of Appeals for Stark County that its judgment conflicted with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Summit County in Prinz Office Equip. Co. v. Pesko (Jan. 31, 1990), Summit App. No. 14155, unreported, 1990 WL 7996.

Having examined Prinz Office Equip. Co. and the record in the present cause, we find that the judgments do not conflict. Furthermore, the court of appeals in certifying the case did not clearly set forth the rule of law upon which the alleged conflict exists. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 594, 613 N.E.2d 1032; Freeman v. Holzer Med. Ctr. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 601, 613 N.E.2d 1037; State v. Parobek (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 61, 550 N.E.2d 476; State v. Radar (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 112, 548 N.E.2d 210; Hays v. St. Elizabeth Hosp. Med. Ctr. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 60, 526 N.E.2d 307; Cook v. Mayfield (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 44, 523 N.E.2d 502; State v. Palider (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 68, 514 N.E.2d 873.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

630 N.E.2d 662, 69 Ohio St. 3d 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/copeco-inc-v-caley-ohio-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack