Eabens v. UsAir, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Eabens v. UsAir, Inc.

670 N.E.2d 1000, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1410, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 1560

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 16, 1996

Docket96-1979

StatusPublished

This text of 670 N.E.2d 1000 (Eabens v. UsAir, Inc.) 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

Eabens v. UsAir, Inc., 670 N.E.2d 1000, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1410, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 1560 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Certified State Law Question, No. 95-3291. On preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.CtPrac.R. XVIII(6). The court declines to answer the following certified questions:

“Under OHIO REV.CODE ANN. § 2125.02(B)(4), how is ‘loss of prospective inheritance’ measured? To recover for that loss, must one demonstrate some lost ‘prospect’ or expectation of inheriting from the decedent?”

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., would answer the second question only. Cook and Stratton, JJ., dissent and would answer both.

On motion for admission pro hoc vice by John Brzytwa for Dombroff, Almy, McKinnon and Goddard, Jr.; motion for admission pro hoc vice of Dennis C. Harrington by Jerry Vande Werken; and motion for admission pro hoc vice of Regis M. McClelland by Jerry Fande Werken. Motions granted.

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

Certified State Law Question, No. 95-3291. On preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.CtPrac.R. XVIII(6). The court declines to answer the following certified questions:

“Under OHIO REV.CODE ANN. § 2125.02(B)(4), how is ‘loss of prospective inheritance’ measured? To recover for that loss, must one demonstrate some lost ‘prospect’ or expectation of inheriting from the decedent?”

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., would answer the second question only. Cook and Stratton, JJ., dissent and would answer both.

On motion for admission pro hoc vice by John Brzytwa for Dombroff, Almy, McKinnon and Goddard, Jr.; motion for admission pro hoc vice of Dennis C. Harrington by Jerry Vande Werken; and motion for admission pro hoc vice of Regis M. McClelland by Jerry Fande Werken. Motions granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 N.E.2d 1000, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1410, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 1560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eabens-v-usair-inc-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack